Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Quality assurance in higher education in
Vietnam:
A case-study
A thesis submitted to
The College of Education
Victoria University
in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Hang Thu Le Nguyen
August 2016
ii
ABSTRACT
This research is inspired by the recent adoption of formal quality assurance in
higher education in Vietnam. The main aim of the study is to explore the quality
assurance systems and mechanisms in Vietnamese higher education, through a
case study of a higher education institution with six member universities, each
with different disciplines and characteristics. The research uses primarily
qualitative research methods.
A conceptual framework, based on the extant literature on quality assurance in
higher education, consisted of five components that informed the collection and
analysis of data: leadership and management; quality culture; stakeholder
engagement; internal processes; and cooperation and collaboration. The primary
source of data was from in-depth interviews with three levels of senior
management: national policy-makers; university policy-makers; and university
policy-implementers. The supplementary data was from quality assurance
documents at both national and institutional levels.
There were three key sets of findings relating to: the convergences and
divergences in the quality assurance implementation of the case universities
viewed through the lens of organisational and change management theories; the
factors that impact the implementation of quality assurance initiatives at the
universities; and the essential conditions for fostering and sustaining the quality
assurance initiatives, as perceived by the interviewed leaders.
The study raises three issues: the importance of including collaborative learning
into the quality assurance framework; the need to view quality assurance
initiatives as an important organisational change; and the application of the Yin-
Yang principle to address the power tension between accountability and
improvement.
iii
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY
I, Hang Thu Le Nguyen, declare that the PhD thesis entitled ‘Quality assurance in
higher education in Vietnam: A case-study’ is no more than 100,000 words in
length including quotes and exclusive of tables, figures, appendices, bibliography,
references and footnotes. This thesis contains no material that has been submitted
previously, in whole or in part, for the award of any other academic degree or
diploma. Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is my own work.
Signature: Date: 18 August 2016
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On completion of this research, I would like to extend my deepest and sincerest
gratitude to my principal supervisors. Associate Professor Shelley Gillis for your
invaluable guidance in helping me shape my study in the initial year. Professor
Margaret Wu for your continuous encouragement, scholarly advice and critical
feedback throughout my study. Associate Professor Ian Macdonald for your
thought-provoking conversations and enormous support for the fourth year, for
transferring the strategies so that I could put my study into perspective and enjoy
the writing of the chapters. I specially owe many thanks to my associate
supervisors - Professor Nicolette Lee and Dr Fion Lim for their generous
assistance, their expertise, timely and critical comments and suggestions. It was
an honour for me to work with all my supervisors. I thank and appreciate their
wisdom, dedication, patience and persistence, and continuous support throughout
my study.
I would like to express my warm and sincere thanks to the research participants
from six member universities of Vietnam National University in Hanoi, as well as
the research participants from the Ministry of Education and Training, and the
VNU Institute for Education quality assurance. You all gave me your precious
time and shared your views. I particularly thank Professor Nguyen Hoa, Dr Vu
Hai Ha, Associate Professor Truong Vu Bang Giang, Dr Le Vu Ha, Associate
Professor Nguyen Thao, and Associate Professor Phan Thao for sharing your
insightful perspectives regarding quality assurance implementation in public
universities in Vietnam.
My deep appreciation is also extended to the prestigious professors, academic
staff and administrative staff of Victoria University, the College of Education,
and the Graduate Research Centre. With their kind assistance, I could get full
access to resources and get all the needed academic, technical, and administrative
support for my study. I am very grateful to Dr Marg Malloch, Professor Marie
Brennan, Professor Ron Adams, Professor Helen Borland for your inspiration. I
sincerely thank all the international and Vietnamese fellow research students in
v
the College of Education for creating a collaborative and friendly environment for
our study, for sharing with me not only your experience, research tips, or
templates, but also laughter and fun, parties and excursions. Without these light-
hearted moments, my PhD journey could have been less meaningful.
I would like to extend my great gratitude to the Australian Leadership Awards
(ALA) program of the Australian Agency for International Development
(AusAID) for granting me the scholarship to pursue a PhD and generous financial
as well as administrative support. I am also indebted to Margaret Jones of
Victoria University International for her continuous support and encouragement.
My sincerest thanks are extended to my friends and their families for helping me
and my son in all aspects of our life in Australia, so that I can concentrate and
complete my study. My special thanks go to my dear friend and colleague, Dr
Kim Anh Dang for her valuable and critical comments that helped me sharpen my
arguments and refine my perspective.
Finally, I wholeheartedly thank my family - my beloved little son Minh Phan for
being a fountain of inspiration and happiness so that I can fight the stress; for
growing up to be a more independent child and student, and enjoying his early
years to the full so that I can keep working hard. I am grateful to my parents for
their unconditional support and love extended to me and my son during our stay
and study away from home. I am indebted to my extended family for all their
emotional support.
Pursuing a PhD makes for a long journey and I appreciate all the people I have
worked with, known and learnt from, and shared parts of this journey with, for
making it a worthwhile experience for me.
Melbourne, August 2016
vi
Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ ii
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY ........................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... xiv
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Quality assurance in higher education ............................................................. 1
1.1.1 An overview ............................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Research on quality and quality assurance in higher education and rationale for the study ........................................................................................ 3
1.2 Aims of the study .............................................................................................. 6
1.3 Research problem and research questions ...................................................... 7
1.4 Contributions of the study ................................................................................ 8
1.5 Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2. CONCEPTUALISING AND CONTEXTUALISING THE STUDY: QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION .................................................................... 11
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Quality and quality assurance ........................................................................ 12
2.1.1 Notion of quality ...................................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Quality assurance in higher education .................................................... 15
2.1.3 The power tension in quality assurance .................................................. 18
2.1.3.1 Accountability or external quality assurance vs. improvement or internal quality assurance ............................................................................ 19
2.1.3.2 The power tension between accountability and improvement ....... 19
2.2 Quality assurance implementation in higher education ................................ 23
2.2.1 Experience from different countries in the world ................................... 23
2.2.1.1 Quality assurance in developing countries ...................................... 24
2.2.2 Overview of the quality assurance implementation in higher education in developed countries ......................................................................................... 25
2.3 Quality assurance frameworks and models to date ....................................... 28
2.3.1 The general model of quality assessment in higher education (GMQA) 30
2.3.2 The transformative model (TM) .............................................................. 31
vii
2.3.3 The comprehensive educational quality assurance model (CEQAM) ..... 31
2.3.4 The responsive university model (RUM) ................................................. 33
2.3.5 The university of learning model (ULM) .................................................. 34
2.3.6 The academic learning organisation framework (ALOF) ......................... 35
2.3.7 The instrumental model (IM) .................................................................. 36
2.3.8 The holistic model for quality management in education (HMQME) ..... 37
2.3.9 A synthesis of the key elements of the models under study .................. 38
2.3.10 Summary ................................................................................................ 41
2.4 Demystifying quality assurance terminology ................................................. 41
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY ..................................... 43
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 43
3.1 Organisational theories .................................................................................. 43
3.1.1 Organisational frames ............................................................................. 44
3.1.2 Organisational theories in higher education ........................................... 46
3.1.2.1 The organised anarchy theory .......................................................... 46
3.1.2.2 The collegium theory ........................................................................ 47
3.1.2.3 The bureaucracy theory ................................................................... 48
3.1.2.4 The cultural theory ........................................................................... 49
3.1.2.5 The interconnectedness between organisational theories and quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 50
3.2 Theoretical framework of the study ............................................................... 52
3.3 Factors driving quality assurance and quality improvement at the institutional level .................................................................................................. 53
3.3.1 Leadership and management .................................................................. 53
3.3.2 Quality culture ......................................................................................... 57
3.3.3 Stakeholder engagement ........................................................................ 60
3.3.4 Cooperation and collaboration................................................................ 66
3.3.5 Internal processes .................................................................................... 71
3.3.6 Summary of the quality assurance mechanism dimensions ................... 72
3.4 Managing quality assurance as organisational change .................................. 73
3.4.1 Three levels of espousal, enactment and experience ............................. 74
3.4.2 Managing and sustaining change ............................................................ 75
viii
3.4.2.1 Change management models ........................................................... 75
3.4.2.2 Barriers to change ............................................................................ 77
3.4.2.3 Supporting and sustaining change ................................................... 78
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 79
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH PARADIGM, METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ................ 80
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 80
4.1 Research paradigm and methodology ........................................................... 80
4.1.1 Research paradigm .................................................................................. 80
4.1.2 Methodology: case study ........................................................................ 82
4.1.2.1 Research questions revisited ............................................................ 82
4.1.2.2 Case study selection ......................................................................... 83
4.1.2.3 Case study design: some theoretical considerations ....................... 84
4.1.2.4 Rationale for the selection of the case ............................................. 86
4.1.2.5 Limitations of case study and the issues of reliability and validity .. 87
4.2 Research methods .......................................................................................... 89
4.2.1 Data collection methods and procedures ............................................... 91
4.2.1.1 Data collection methods................................................................... 91
4.2.1.2 Interviews: some theoretical considerations ................................... 92
4.2.1.3 Data collection procedures .............................................................. 93
4.2.2 Data types, sources and sampling ........................................................... 95
4.2.2.1 Data types ......................................................................................... 95
4.2.2.2 Description of sources and sampling ............................................... 96
4.2.3 Data analysis modes ................................................................................ 98
4.2.3.1 Data analysis techniques .................................................................. 98
4.2.4 The issues of reliability and validity ....................................................... 100
4.3 Ethical considerations ................................................................................... 101
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 5. CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS: VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ................................................................................. 103
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 103
5.1 The educational system in Vietnam ............................................................. 103
5.1.1 The historical evolution of the national educational system ................ 103
5.1.2 Factors influencing Vietnamese education ........................................... 109
ix
5.1.3 Features of Vietnamese higher education ............................................ 113
5.1.3.1 A brief history of Vietnam’s higher education development ......... 113
5.1.3.2 Common styles of institutional organisation ................................. 114
5.1.3.3 Challenges and opportunities for Vietnamese higher education .. 116
5.2 The quality assurance system in Vietnam .................................................... 118
5.2.1 Types of quality assurance already in place .......................................... 118
5.2.2 The adopted framework and the implementation of quality assurance ........................................................................................................................ 119
5.2.3 The legal and regulatory framework for quality assurance in higher education ........................................................................................................ 120
5.2.4 Opportunities and challenges for Vietnamese quality assurance ......... 121
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 123
CHAPTER 6. THE CURRENT QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICE AT THE CASE-STUDY INSTITUTION ....................................................................................................... 124
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 124
6.1 Description of the case: The national institution and its six affiliated universities .......................................................................................................... 125
6.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 125
6.1.2 External quality assurance policy and requirements for the universities ........................................................................................................................ 129
6.1.2.1 Policy and requirements from the MoET and the institution: adopting the regional quality assurance framework ................................. 129
6.1.2.2 Accreditation profile of the case institution .................................. 133
6.1.3 The internal quality assurance system and arrangements within the institution ....................................................................................................... 135
6.1.3.1 The institutional quality assurance system .................................... 135
6.1.3.2 Internal assessment activities already in place .............................. 137
6.2 The current quality assurance implementation at the universities ............. 138
6.2.1 Key components of the universities’ quality assurance frameworks.... 138
6.2.1.1 Quality assurance focus: accountability or improvement? ............ 138
6.2.1.2 Leadership and management: dimension(s) of leadership in place? .................................................................................................................... 143
6.2.1.3 A culture of continuous quality improvement: what type of quality culture is in place? ...................................................................................... 148
6.2.1.4 Stakeholder engagement ............................................................... 155
x
6.2.1.5 Cooperation and collaboration ...................................................... 161
6.2.1.6 Internal processes........................................................................... 168
6.2.1.7 Summary: frameworks or models underlying the current quality assurance practices at the universities ...................................................... 171
6.2.2 Possible explanations for the discrepancies in the universities’ quality assurance practices ........................................................................................ 174
6.2.2.1 In light of the organisational theories in higher education ............ 174
6.2.2.2 Espousal, enactment and experience in quality assurance initiatives .................................................................................................................... 179
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 183
CHAPTER 7. THE FACTORS THAT IMPACT QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICE AT THE CASE-STUDY INSTITUTION .................................................................................. 185
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 185
7.1 Factors that facilitate quality assurance practice at the universities ........... 185
7.1.1 Human facilitating factors: staff awareness and commitment ............. 186
7.1.2 Organisational facilitating factors ......................................................... 190
7.1.2.1 Effective human resource management ........................................ 190
7.1.2.2 Enabling environment for continuous improvement ..................... 192
7.1.3 Collaborative learning ........................................................................... 198
7.1.4 Exemplary leadership ............................................................................ 200
7.1.5 Support from key stakeholders ............................................................. 204
7.2 Factors that hinder quality assurance practice at the universities .............. 205
7.2.1 Human constraining factors .................................................................. 205
7.2.1.1 Student issues ................................................................................. 205
7.2.1.2 Teacher issues................................................................................. 207
7.2.1.3 Resistance to quality assurance implementation .......................... 210
7.2.2 Organisational inhibiting factors ........................................................... 212
7.2.2.1 Human resource management (HRM) issues ................................. 212
7.2.2.2 Limited resources for quality assurance......................................... 213
7.2.2.3 Conflicts in organisations ............................................................... 217
7.2.3 Affecters - Context and Vietnamese culture ......................................... 220
7.3 Further discussion......................................................................................... 225
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 233
xi
CHAPTER 8. LONG-TERM STRATEGIES FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN VIETNAM .................................................................................... 234
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 234
8.1 How the universities enhance their internal quality assurance ................... 234
8.1.1 Leadership to navigate quality assurance ............................................. 235
8.1.1.1 Strategic planning with quality assurance integration ................... 235
8.1.1.2 Policy-making leaders’ mindset: governing within given autonomy, promoting university-wide synergy ............................................................ 239
8.1.2 Resources to facilitate quality assurance implementation ................... 242
8.1.2.1 Human resource development: stronger capacity, better commitment ............................................................................................... 242
8.1.2.2 Supporting resources: time, finance and physical resources ......... 247
8.1.3 Continuous improvement mechanisms to strengthen quality culture . 252
8.1.3.1 The application of job descriptions and key performance indicators .................................................................................................................... 252
8.1.3.2 Enabling working condition: right policies, transparent processes, and professionalism .................................................................................... 254
8.1.3.3 Promoting research ........................................................................ 256
8.1.4 Stakeholder engagement to inform quality improvement needs ........ 259
8.1.5 Requirements for quality assurance centres and quality assurance staff ........................................................................................................................ 261
8.2 Accountability and improvement in harmony ............................................. 263
8.3 Further discussion......................................................................................... 267
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 271
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................................................................. 273
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 273
9.1 Research design and theoretical framework revisited ................................. 273
9.2 Summary of major findings .......................................................................... 274
9.2.1 The current situation of quality assurance implementation at the case universities ...................................................................................................... 274
9.2.2 Possible enablers and inhibitors impacting the quality assurance implementation at the case universities ........................................................ 277
9.2.3 The essential conditions for sustaining quality assurance initiatives ... 281
9.3 Implications .................................................................................................. 284
xii
9.3.1 Methodological implications ................................................................. 284
9.3.2 Theoretical implications ........................................................................ 285
9.3.3 Practical implications ............................................................................. 289
9.4 Limitations and recommendations for further studies ................................ 293
Concluding remarks ............................................................................................ 295
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 296
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 313
APPENDIX 1: ETHICS APPROVAL ..................................................................... 313
APPENDIX 2. INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ............................................................ 314
APPENDIX 3. LIST OF PILOT INTERVIEWS ....................................................... 318
APPENDIX 4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS................................................................. 319
APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW CODING .................................................................. 320
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of main features of quality assurance models ....................... 40
Table 2: Data sources - summary of individuals ................................................... 97
Table 3: Number of educational institutions in Vietnam in 2012 ...................... 109
Table 4: Administrative information about the member universities ............... 126
Table 5: Organisational theories underlying the member universities’
management ......................................................................................... 128
Table 6: Overview of the member universities’ quality assurance profiles up to
the end of 2014 .................................................................................... 139
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The conceptual diagram of Boyle and Bowden’s (1997) model ........... 33
Figure 2: Diagram of the theoretical framework ................................................. 53
Figure 3: The change process model as a full stream process ............................. 76
Figure 4: The case study method ......................................................................... 86
Figure 5: Data analysis process ............................................................................. 98
Figure 6: Structure of the formal education system of Vietnam ....................... 108
Figure 7: The case institution’s organisational structure ................................... 127
Figure 8: A framework for higher education quality assurance principles in the
Asia-Pacific region, often referred to as Chiba principles ................ 130
Figure 9: Quality culture types within the case universities .............................. 153
Figure 10: The interaction of quality assurance enablers and inhibitors ........... 226
Figure 11: The Yin-Yang symbol .......................................................................... 264
Figure 12: Applying the Yin-Yang principle in quality assurance ........................ 266
Figure 13: How quality assurance is sustained via the strengthening of a quality
culture ................................................................................................. 270
Figure 14: Overview of the theories application for the study .......................... 287
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
AA: Academic affairs
ABET: Acceditation Board for Engineering and Technology
ALOF: The Academic Learning Organisation Framework (Dill 1999)
APQN: Asia-Pacific Quality Network
ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AUN: ASEAN University Network
BPR: Business Process Reengineering
CEQAM: The Comprehensive Educational Quality Assurance Model (Boyle
& Bowden 1997)
CQI: Continuous quality improvement
ENQA: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
GDETA: General Department of Education Testing and Accreditation
GMQA: The General model of quality assessment in Higher Education
(Van Vugh & Weisterheijden 1994)
GSO: General Statistics Office
HE: Higher education
HEIs: Higher education institutions
HERA: Higher Education Reform Agenda
HMQME: The Holistic Model for Quality management in Education
(Srikanthan & Darymple 2002, 2004, 2007)
HRM: Human resource management
ICT: Information and communications technology, an extended term for
Information technology
IIEP: International institute for education planning
IM: The Instrumental Model (Lim 2001)
INFEQA: Institute for education quality assurance
xvi
INQAAHE: International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher
Education
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
JD: Job description
KPI: Key performance indicator
MoET: Ministry of Education and Training
MoJ: Ministry of Justice
PD: Professional development
P&P: Policy and procedures
QA Quality assurance
RUM: The Responsive University Model (Tierney 1998)
SEAMEO: Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization
TM: The Transformative Model (Harvey & Knight 1996)
UEE: University entrance examination
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
ULM: The University of Learning Model (Bowden & Marton 1998 &
2003)
VNA: Vietnam National Assembly
VNGO: Vietnamese Government
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter sets the background of the study. It begins with an overview of the
central issue: how quality assurance in higher education has developed over the
last decades and gained its status in the higher education development agenda in
various regions and countries worldwide. The chapter then provides a brief
description of the aims of the study, the research problem and specific research
questions, and the contributions of the study. Finally, the organisation of the
thesis is presented.
1.1 Quality assurance in higher education
1.1.1 An overview
Quality has been a concern of higher education institutions since the founding of
the mediaeval universities in Europe (Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1994).
Vroeijenstijn (1995, as cited in Newton, 2006, p.3) claimed that ‘the concept of
quality is not new: it has always been part of the academic tradition’. Similarly,
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s
International institute for education planning (IIEP-UNESCO) (2011) argued that
‘quality assurance of higher education, by state authorities, collective higher
education institution bodies, or higher education institutions themselves is by no
means a new practice and request’ (p. 13).
The research literature reveals that since the 1980s and 1990s, quality has become
an ever-growing concern, ‘a theme with an unchallenged position in the
discussion around higher education’ (Westerheijden et al., 2007), and this was
associated with the major trends and changes in the context of higher education.
These included:
o growth in social demand and system expansion
o diversity of program provision and student profile
2
o massification of education
o shrinking resources
o changes in governmental funding schemes
o privatisation of higher education
o emergence and growth of education providers other than universities
o transnational higher education and internationalisation of higher education
o higher education perceived as a commodity good, and “consumer”
demand for market transparency
o tendency to adopt business-world practices in the public sector, especially
the Japanese innovation regarding quality control
o deregulation and government’s demand for value for money (most critical
to the operation of universities)
(See, for example, Harvey & Newton, 2004; Westerheijden, Stensaker &
Rosa, 2007; Brennan & Shah, 2000b; Dill, 2007b; Shah & Jarzabkowski,
2013; Westerheijden, Hulpiau & Waeytens, 2007; Ewell, 2010; Taylor, 2010;
IIEP-UNESCO, 2011).
The heightened demand for accountability and the increased pressure from
external monitoring bodies, associated with the above mentioned trends and
changes, on the one hand, presented prominent challenges for higher education
institutions (Newton, 2000). On the other hand, however, they brought a call for
more formal and explicit quality assurance schemes (Brennan & Shah, 2000a;
Harvey & Newton, 2004). As argued by Westerheijden, Hulpiau and Waeytens
(2007), since the first national quality assurance schemes were developed and
implemented in a few developed countries with world-class elite universities (in
Western Europe and the United States of America [USA]) in the 1980s and
1990s, the accumulated experiences across the countries ‘have always given rise
to question, discuss, and adapt those schemes’ (p. 295). Such developments then
spread to Central and Eastern Europe, culminating in the Bologna Declaration of
June 1999. This emphasised the internationalisation of a quality assurance
3
framework, before radiating to other world regions (Van Vught & Westerheijden,
1994; Dill, 2010; IIEP-UNESCO, 2011).
In the last decades, quality assurance has become a global concern regarding
quality and standards. There has been an international appetite for quality
assurance services, national and regional quality agencies have been established,
endeavours have been invested into developing more systematic and
comprehensive quality assurance approaches, and various new models and
frameworks have been proposed for educational quality in higher education
(IIEP-UNESCO, 2011; Boyle & Bowden, 1997; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2007).
As an international tendency, various countries around the world have adopted or
developed formal quality assurance systems, aiming at regulating and improving
the quality of their higher education, in response to ‘competitiveness to attract
students and accountability for outcomes and resources used’ (Boyle & Bowden,
1997, p. 112). More than ever, higher education institutions in many countries
across the regions have been urged to guarantee and demonstrate their “value for
money” (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011).
1.1.2 Research on quality and quality assurance in higher education and rationale
for the study
A substantial amount of research work has been conducted in the domain of
quality assurance in higher education during the past three and a half decades. As
outlined by Newton (2006), during the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers
focused on defining, categorising and operationalising formal meanings of the
notions of ‘quality’ and associated quality terminology and vocabulary. The most
prominent study was that of Harvey and Green (1993), which associated quality
with excellence, value for money, perfection, fitness for purpose, and
transformation of the learner (this work is discussed further in Chapter 2). In the
mid and late 1990s, several impact studies (for example, Harvey, 1995; Cheng &
Tam, 1997; Westerheijden, 1999) were conducted to investigate quality in a
higher education context and as quality assurance practice. Practitioners’ concerns
4
arose from the debate in this period, such as, ‘quality associated with burden and
bureaucracy rather than improvement’, ‘improved quality or improved systems’,
or the ‘politics of quality’, quality as ‘ritualism’ or ‘tokenism’ (Newton, 2006,
p.31).
During the next decade, the 2000s, much of the research conducted focused on
the design and relevance of a common framework for regional and national
quality assurance; on appraising the applicability of industrial management
models to higher education; on the possibility of applying the same framework to
different contexts; on the tension between improvement and accountability in
both external and internal quality assurance approaches; and on the effects of
quality assurance practices in the developed contexts (Harvey & William, 2010)1.
Additionally, several issues for further research were highlighted, regarding the
ultimate purposes of quality assurance in higher education - the engagement
leading to transformation of students’ learning, and insights into academics’
responses to quality and the changing work context (see, for example, Stensaker,
2003; Coates, 2005; Newton, 2006; Anderson, 2006).
As revealed in the extant literature, much progress has been made through
research and debate, and theoretical views as well as practices across the regions
seem to have certain convergences. However, there is still no universal consensus
on how best to manage quality within higher education, and there is still a lack of
a universally agreed model for quality assurance (Brookes & Becket, 2008;
Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002) nor is it necessary (Lemaitre, 2002). This has
called for higher education institutions’ consideration in adopting and adapting
any quality assurance framework, taking into account the influence of situational
factors and context (Newton et al., 1999, 2006), the institutional level of
autonomy, and organisational culture (Billing, 2004).
1 Harvey and William (2010) reviewed 15 years of quality assurance research.
5
There has been extensive research into how quality has been assured in developed
countries and how quality assurance models have been developed, implemented,
documented and analysed in reports (Please refer to Chapter 2 for detailed
review). However, when compared to developed countries, where the conditions
that make quality possible are already in place, developing countries are in a far
more difficult situation. In reality, many developing countries have adopted the
quality assurance models, and adjusted the standards and procedures that have
been applied elsewhere in developed countries, to meet their own national
requirements. Lim (2001) argued that the usefulness and relevance of such
practice is still an area of debate.
As stated by Lemaitre (2002), one cannot ignore the fact that university and ideas
on how it should look or function originated from developed countries, mainly
Europe. Through exchange and partnership with other national and
regional/international institutions, higher education systems evolved. Likewise,
quality systems in higher education in developing countries have gone through
the process of adoption and adaptation. It is essential, though, in today’s
globalised world, that the quality standards and criteria applied in developing
countries are not so different from those applied in developed countries.
A more in-depth study of the quality assurance literature shows that, despite the
progress in conceptualisation and theoretical positioning of “quality in higher
education” and “how to assure it”, there is still limited empirical research on the
possible barriers as well as enablers for the adoption of a quality assurance
framework in the context of higher education, especially in developing countries.
Additionally, although quality assurance initiatives in higher education were
formed, to a certain extent, under the influence of the industrial management and
quality control practised in the business world (Frazer & Craft, 1992; Newton,
2002; Westerheijden, Hulpiau & Waeytens, 2007; IIEP-UNESCO, 2010), there is
still a lack of comprehensive studies on how quality assurance initiatives can be
managed and sustained as instrumental organisational change. There is also a lack
of clarity about how improvements of the core educational processes at the
6
institutional level can be identified and explained through the lenses of
organisational management theories. The lack of research in this area might
impede an important perspective for higher education leaders and managers in
their quality assurance and quality improvement endeavours.
In Vietnam, research and empirical studies have focused on the conditions needed
for, and the initial implementation of, quality assurance as an important
educational reform (i.e. accreditation of educational quality, and the development
of a proper quality assurance system for universities) (Adams et al., 2012a,
2012b; Oliver, 2004; Nguyen et al., 2009; Lam & Vu, 2012; Pham, 2012;
Westerheijden, Cremonini & Van Empel, 2010; Dao, 2014). This is because
quality assurance has been a recent phenomenon (this is discussed in more detail
in Chapter 5), and extensive effort and resources have been invested mainly into
accreditation as an important educational reform at the national level. There is
scant evidence on how comprehensively quality assurance is being implemented
in universities, how universities address the tension between external
requirements and internal capacity enhancement needs, how they do this under
contextual and systemic constraints, or what can be factored into the desired
management and sustainability of quality assurance initiatives.
This brief review of how quality assurance is positioned in the world, and in
Vietnam particularly, suggests the need for a more in-depth study. An analysis of
quality assurance implementation and sustainability and how this relates to the
improvement of institutional operations in the context of a developing country
like Vietnam will assist in filling the gap in existing research.
1.2 Aims of the study
The above review of literature on quality assurance in higher education, and
identification of the potential research gap provided the rationale for this study.
That said, this study aimed at examining the existing quality assurance system
and mechanisms in place in Vietnamese higher education institutions. It set out to
7
study the quality assurance framework that underlies the current quality assurance
practices, to understand how Vietnamese universities develop their quality
assurance systems, with accompanying processes and measures, and to identify
the possible factors that influence the implementation of quality assurance
initiatives. This study also sought to apply organisational theories and change
management theories as instrumental lenses through which the universities’
current quality assurance practices could be interpreted and possibly
conceptualised into applicable lessons. These might then inform other public
universities in developing contexts of relevant insights into their quality assurance
initiatives, adoption and implementation.
1.3 Research problem and research questions
This study focuses on a case institution - a “flagship” representative of
Vietnamese public universities. The central research problem focused on how the
case institution and its member universities adopt the inherent quality assurance
framework imposed by their Ministry of Education and Training, and respond to
the external requirements, while developing and enhancing their internal capacity.
Relatedly, the study sought to explain the divergences and convergences in
quality assurance implementation among the member universities, as well as the
range of factors that enable or hinder their implementation. From this basis, the
study can inform decision-making regarding quality assurance initiatives and their
implementation.
To address the above research problem, a set of research questions were framed to
guide the data collection and analysis, as well as the writing up of the thesis.
These are:
1) How are the case study universities conducting their quality assurance?
1.1 What are the key components of their quality assurance frameworks? and
1.2 What are the possible explanations for the discrepancies among the
universities’ quality assurance practices?
8
2) What are the possible factors that impact on the quality assurance
implementation at the case universities?
2.1 What are the possible factors that facilitate quality assurance
implementation at the case universities? and
2.2 What are the possible factors that hinder quality assurance implementation
at the case universities?
3) What are the essential conditions for a sustainable quality assurance
mechanism, from the perspectives of the interviewed leaders?
In order to answer these research questions with substance, the researcher first
developed a framework for investigation, based on the review of existing quality
assurance models and frameworks worldwide. Data was collected through in-
depth interviews and from quality assurance related documents. For data analysis,
the following theoretical frameworks were employed: Manning’s (2013)
organisational theories in higher education; Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
organisational reframing theories; and organisational change management
theories (see for example, Graetz et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2009; Kotter, 2002).
1.4 Contributions of the study
Using organisational theories and change management frameworks, this research
sought to derive theoretical explanations of the current quality assurance practices
in the context of a public university in a developing country. The research adds
both theoretical and empirical knowledge to the available literature on how the
two components of a quality assurance mechanism - the external and the internal -
could be developed and sustained in harmony, within a higher education context,
taking into account all possible influencing factors.
Theoretically, this study partially bridges the research gap in the area of managing
and sustaining quality assurance initiatives in higher education in the context of
developing countries. First, the findings of the study can inform other public
universities in Vietnam and elsewhere of the need to refine their adoption and
9
adaptation of a quality assurance framework, so that both external and internal
quality assurance can be appropriately and timely addressed. Second, this study
may serve as a useful reference for other future studies in the field of quality
assurance in higher education in Vietnam.
Regarding its practical contribution, this study provides referential information to
other public universities in Vietnam and relevant stakeholders, including the
Ministry of Education and Training (MoET), on the current implementation of
quality assurance. It helps reinforce the vital contribution that key stakeholders
make to the improvement of educational quality in higher education. Finally, the
study might inform policy-makers at both national and institutional levels of the
needed changes in policy and procedures, processes and measures, to facilitate
and sustain quality assurance initiatives.
1.5 Structure of the thesis
The thesis is organised into nine chapters. Chapter 2 provides a thorough review
of the extant literature on quality assurance in higher education. It outlines
common quality assurance terminology: the notion of quality, approaches to
quality assurance - external focusing on accountability and internal centring on
improvement. This is followed by a brief summary of quality assurance
implementation across the world, including the experiences of different countries
and the responsiveness of higher education institutions within these countries.
The main part of this chapter is focused on the review of existing quality
assurance models and frameworks, followed by a synthesis of the common
elements of these frameworks.
Chapter 3 is dedicated to the conceptualisation of the study. It examines and
elaborates on the key theories used for interpreting and explaining current quality
assurance practice at the case institution. These theories are Manning’s (2013)
organisational theories in higher education; Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
organisational reframing theories; and organisational change management
10
theories (Graetz et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2009; Kotter, 2002). A framework for
investigation is proposed, based on the reviewed models outlined in Chapter 2.
The chapter concludes with an elaboration of the main components of the
conceptual framework.
Chapter 4 presents the research paradigm, methodology and research methods. It
justifies the selection of the case study methodology, as well as the selection of
the case institution. Other necessary issues, such as data collection methods and
procedures, data types, sources and sampling, and the reliability and validity of
the study, are sequentially presented.
Chapter 5 provides a detailed description of the context for the study. It covers
two broad areas: the educational system in Vietnam and its quality assurance
system. The chapter touches on relevant issues of interest, such as the factors
influencing Vietnamese education and features of its higher education. The
chapter also presents an up to date account of the development of quality
assurance in Vietnam. Chapter 5 serves as a reality lens for the data interpretation
in the succeeding chapters.
Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present the empirical findings based on the analysis and
interpretation of data, followed by extended discussion using the theoretical
lenses presented in Chapter 3. Sequentially, Chapter 6 provides answers to the
first research question, Chapter 7 provides answers to the second research
question, and Chapter 8 provides answers to the third research question.
Finally, Chapter 9 concludes the thesis with a brief summary of the key findings
and the implications of the study. It also discusses the study’s limitations and
recommendations for further research.
11
CHAPTER 2. CONCEPTUALISING AND
CONTEXTUALISING THE STUDY: QUALITY
ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Introduction
This chapter explores the two basic concepts - quality and quality assurance, and
their application in the context of higher education. The literature stemming from
these two concepts has been enriched by analysis of controversial issues: from
how quality can be defined and ensured in the higher education sector, to whether
and to what extent quality assurance ensures the accountability of the
universities2, or to what extent quality assurance constrains universities; and even,
whether it is time to replace quality assurance (addressing both accountability and
improvement) with quality improvement (Harvey & Newton, 2007).
This chapter reviews the arguments and related issues in the extant literature on
quality assurance in higher education. It starts, in Section 2.1, with the
conceptualisation of quality and quality assurance in higher education, covering
key quality terminology and the power tension between accountability and
improvement. The next part of the chapter, Section 2.2, presents a critical review
of the implementation of quality assurance in higher education institutions (HEIs)
in different regions of the world, both developed and developing countries, and
how the HEIs in developed countries implemented the quality assurance
initiative. Section 2.3 explores the literature on the development and adoption of
good quality assurance models and frameworks, and highlights the key elements
of these models. Finally, Section 2.4 provides a brief glossary of quality
assurance terminology used throughout the thesis.
2 In this thesis, the term “university” and “higher education institution” are used interchangeably.
12
2.1 Quality and quality assurance
2.1.1 Notion of quality
According to IIEP (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011), there are two reasons for the
difficulties associated with the notion of quality in higher education. Firstly, there
is no consensus on the objectives of higher education, be it the production of
qualified manpower, training for a research career, or a matter of extending life
chances. Second, higher education is a multi-dimensional and complex process
based on the interrelationship between teachers and learners, and ‘it is difficult to
grasp the interaction of inputs and throughputs [process] and what exactly
determines the outputs’ (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011, p.16) (Please refer to Section
2.1.2 for the concepts inputs, throughputs and outputs).
Quality is an important issue in all sectors of society, including education. In
higher education, specifically, quality has been a primary agenda item for
institutional development in several countries. This is largely due to HEIs facing
globalisation issues and increasing market competitiveness, which has typically
led to greater accountability from government organisations about the use of
public money (Brennan, 1995; Harvey, 1997; Dill, 1999; Srikanthan &
Dalrymple, 2002; Ewell, 2007).
This raises the question as to how quality has been defined in higher education.
Yet there seems to be no single definition of quality that has received general
acceptance among the actors involved. There have been a large number of
attempts to define quality, with respect to such different perspectives as
stakeholders, culture, value and transformation (see, for example, Crosby, 1979;
Cheng & Tam, 1997; Boyle & Bowden, 1997; Tam, 2001; Woodhouse, 2006;
Van Kemenade et al., 2008; Harvey & Stensaker, 2008). The evidence suggests
that different stakeholders use the concept of quality differently in order to
legitimise their specific vision or interests.
In the area of higher education, the concept of what constitutes quality has been
addressed in numerous studies, but without a consensus. Nevertheless, the set of
13
five major categories of definitions of quality in higher education presented by
Harvey and Green (1993) and Green (1993) have been well recognised. These are
a point of reference in several studies that have examined the quality domain (see,
for example, Owlia, 1996; Westerheijden, 1999, 2007; Lim, 2001; Tam, 2001;
Cheng 2003; Blackmur, 2004, 2007; Lomas, 2004, 2007; Van Kemenade et al.,
2008; Langfeldt et al., 2009; Kahsay, 2012).
These five categories of the definition for quality can be summarised as follows:
Quality as Exceptional: This notion is related to academic excellence. In this
view, quality is achieved if high standards are surpassed. It is more than likely
that internal stakeholders and academic staff would support this view.
Quality as Perfection or Consistency: Quality means conforming to standards, it
is perceived as consistent, with a zero defect outcome. This dimension of quality
may not be appropriate for higher education context as much as to industry.
Quality as Fitness for Purpose: Quality is achieved if the institutional missions
are achieved and customers’ requirements are fulfilled. It would appear likely that
external stakeholders would be interested in this dimension.
Quality as Value for Money: This view embodies efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability, and is associated with performance indicators. Funding agencies,
parents and students tend to be interested in this dimension.
Quality as Transformation: This view refers to academic enhancement and the
empowering of students, through the learning process. This allows them to
transform themselves through a higher level of knowledge and skills. Academics
and the students themselves would be motivated by this dimension.
Whilst the first four categories have been generally known and widely discussed
in the literature, the fifth category (i.e. Quality as Transformation) was coined by
Harvey and is further developed in his later studies (for example, Harvey &
Knight, 1996; Harvey & Newton, 2007).
14
Horsburgh (1999) supported Harvey’s arguments and further elaborated on this
fifth category. Transformation goes beyond enhancement (addition of knowledge
and skills) or empowerment (development of critical skills); it refers to the
evolution of the way students approach the acquisition of knowledge and skills
and relate these to the wider context outside their campus. Transformation
provides an overarching concept of quality in education. Quality needs to be
understood as a transformative process that encompasses learning, teaching,
assessment, institutional practices and structures, and the institutional,
departmental and faculty culture and climate (Horsburgh, 1999, p.10).
How quality is defined originates from the proponent’s perspective and will
determine how quality is assured. Harvey and Green’s (1993) definitions, which
appear to be widely acknowledged by several researchers, are based on
stakeholder views of quality, thus they are “stakeholder-relative”. Similarly,
Westerheijden (1999) claimed that quality should be viewed from a multi-actor
and multi-dimensional perspective, reflecting different views of different
stakeholders on different dimensions of the quality domain. Boyle and Bowden
(1997) also supported this stakeholder related perspective. They suggested that as
‘education is a purposeful activity based on values and goals which are shaped by
the interests of a range of stakeholders’ (p. 113), and as values, goals and
stakeholders’ interests vary across communities and higher education (HE)
contexts, programs and time, quality and quality improvement need to be viewed
from different perspectives.
It should be noted that the different views of quality have implications for the
quality assurance system and policy adopted in a particular higher education
context. The way in which quality assurance has been established in higher
education as a mechanism to ensure quality, and relevant issues will be discussed
in the section that follows.
15
2.1.2 Quality assurance in higher education
As already indicated, a review of relevant literature in the quality domain reveals
that different terms used in the discussion and practice of quality assurance are
frequently used very loosely, and there is no general consensus on the exact
meaning of each term. Accordingly, as outlined in the External Quality Assurance
Modules (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011), some of the terms are generic for the whole
field, such as quality assurance and quality assessment, while others relate to
specific approaches, such as quality audit and accreditation. Quality assurance is a
generic term used for all forms of quality monitoring, evaluation or review.
In all discussions on quality assurance, different terms are applied in viewing the
management of quality and specifying processes and standards. However, at the
international level, there are common principles and overarching purposes. The
common requirement for quality assurance is ‘being systematic and
comprehensive about maximising the quality of how things are done and the
outcomes that result’ (Boyle & Bowden 1997, p. 114).
This study adopts the global term, quality assurance, and focuses on the general
quality assurance initiatives, with accreditation3 being mentioned when necessary.
The study does not cover quality assessment4 or quality audit5, as these are out of
scope.
Let us browse through the literature for different attempts to define quality
assurance in higher education.
3 ‘Accreditation is the process by which a government or private body evaluates the quality of a
higher education institution as a whole or a specific educational programme in order to formally
recognize it as having met certain predetermined minimal criteria or standards’ (UNESCO-IIEP,
2011, p.19). 4 ‘Quality assessment (often called also quality review or evaluation) indicates the actual process
of external evaluation (reviewing, measuring, judging) of the quality of higher education
institutions and programmes’ (UNESCO-IIEP, 2011, p.18). 5 ‘Quality audit is the process of quality assessment by which an external body ensures that: 1) the
institution or programme quality assurance procedures; or 2) that the overall (internal and
external) quality assurance procedures of the system are adequate and are actually being carried
out’ (UNESCO-IIEP, 2011, p.18).
16
Quality assurance is a ‘holistic approach providing a philosophical framework for
the development of higher education institutions’ (Kettunen, 2008, p. 323).
Quality assurance involves the development of policy, procedures and systems for
the HEI to ensure and improve its educational quality. Quality assurance
mechanisms have been introduced into higher education systems worldwide to
address the pressure from government and external stakeholders on accountability
in relation to public money/funding allocation and tuition payment, while still
striving for enhanced academic-related performance in order to stay competitive
(Ewell, 2007; Stensaker, Rosa & Westerheijden, 2007).
Other scholars have similar views towards the nature and function of quality
assurance in the context of higher education. To Harvey and Newton (2007),
quality assurance provides HEIs with a means of securing accountability, and
encouraging compliance to policy requirements. To Barnett (1992), quality
assurance in a HEI implies a determination to develop a quality culture so that
everyone is aware of their own part in sustaining and improving the quality of the
institution. Boyle and Bowden (1997) and Campbell and Rozsnyai (2002) view
quality assurance as the perpetuating development and implementation of policies
and procedures, aimed at maintaining and improving quality as per core values
and stakeholder needs.
The assurance of quality in higher education stems from a multi-dimensional and
subjective understanding of the nature of quality, as stakeholder-relative. Quality
assurance in higher education involves a process in which stakeholders establish
their confidence that the desired qualities are present at least to the threshold level
or minimum requirement (Harvey, 2002; Stella, 2008; Blackmur, 2007). This
threshold level refers to the minimum performance standards that the HEI
establishes in its mission and purpose (which is explicit to the external
stakeholders) and ‘is usually expressed according to three different types of
measures: input, process and output’ (Westerheijden, 2007, p.80).
17
As categorised by Westerheijden (2007), input measures refer to such factors as
staff body and credentials, student intake, staff-student ratio, funding and
facilities per student, and curriculum plans. Process measures include such factors
as: requirements for different course units/programs, students’ feedback on course
delivery, and alumni feedback. Finally, output measures include such factors as:
graduation rates/drop-outs, the employment rate in relevant job sectors, and
research outputs.
All the above-reviewed authors have attempted to define quality assurance and
related issues, and their studies overlap in many ways. Their studies could fit with
the definition of quality assurance as presented in the glossary of basic terms and
definitions (Vlãsceanu, Grünberg, & Pârlea, 2007, cited in IIEP-UNESCO, 2011).
The definition is as follows:
“Quality assurance relates to a continuous process of evaluating (assessing,
monitoring, guaranteeing, maintaining, and improving) the quality of a
higher education system, institutions or programs. As a regulatory
mechanism, quality assurance focuses on both accountability and
improvement, providing information and judgment (not ranking) through
an agreed and consistent process and well-established criteria. Many
systems make a distinction between internal quality assurance (i.e. intra-
institutional practices in view of monitoring and improving the quality of
higher education) and external quality assurance (i.e. inter- or supra-
institutional schemes of assuring the quality of higher education
institutions and programs). Quality assurance activities depend on the
existence of the necessary institutional mechanisms preferably sustained
by a solid quality culture. The scope of quality assurance is determined by
the shape and the size of the higher education system. (p. 17)
In concise terms, as updated in the modules of IIEP-UNESCO (2011), quality
assurance is a process of establishing stakeholder confidence that provision
(inputs, process and outcomes) fulfils expectations or measures up to minimum
requirements.
18
The rationale for quality assurance in higher education encompasses
accountability, control, compliance and improvement. Among these,
accountability has been considered the most dominant rationale and the condition
for improvement (Harvey & Newton, 2007). There have been various studies on
the power tension between accountability that relates to external quality
assurance, and improvement that relates to internal quality assurance (Brennan &
Shah, 2000a, 2000b; Dill, 2007a; Kohoutek, 2009a, 2009b; Harvey & William,
2010).
These two approaches (external and internal quality assurance) and related issues
will be addressed in more details in the next section.
2.1.3 The power tension in quality assurance
A prominent part of the quality assurance literature up to date has been focused
on the different values held by, and the power tension between and among
stakeholders in HEIs. Such varied ways of thinking underlie different choices of
the quality assurance types by HEIs.
At the institutional level, quality assurance is defined as one part of the overall
management function that determines and implements the institutional quality
policy (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011). Externally, the government or funding agencies
might impose procedures on institutions, for purposes of accountability and
conformity. Internally, the institutional or departmental management might also
establish their own procedures for monitoring their performance and
improvement.
As summarised in the IIEP-UNESCO quality assurance modules (2011), the
procedures for quality assurance at the institutional level may be part of a well-
practised process (e.g. institutional accreditation or program review) or relate to
new practices (e.g. the use of student feedback on the teaching and learning
process). These procedures may be ‘geared towards research activities, courses,
academic staff or support/administrative functions’ (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011, p.17).
19
2.1.3.1 Accountability or external quality assurance vs. improvement or internal
quality assurance
As argued by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2007), a quality system can be seen as
having two aspects: accountability and improvement through assurance.
External quality assurance is the process of evaluating education quality through
the subjective process of peer-review by external bodies (Westerheijden, 2007;
Stensaker et al., 2010), in which it is thought that this approach ensures “value for
money” (Harvey & Newton, 2007) and “fitness for purpose” (Lomas, 2004).
External quality assurance focuses on accountability (Barnett, 1992) and is
compliance-driven. To put it in simple terms, external quality assurance refers to
the actions of an external body, such as a quality assurance agency, or another
body outside the institution, which assesses the operation of the institution or its
programs to determine whether the agreed-on standards have been met.
Meanwhile, internal quality assurance refers to the fixed procedures and policies
developed within the institution to monitor and improve their own quality
(Westerheijden, 2007; Dill, 2007), and is associated with the transformation view
of quality. Internal quality assurance focuses on improvement (Barnett, 1992) and
is improvement-driven. Again, to put it simply, internal quality assurance refers to
the institution’s policies and mechanisms for ensuring that it is fulfilling its own
purposes, as well as meeting the standards that apply to higher education in
general or to the profession or discipline in particular.
2.1.3.2 The power tension between accountability and improvement
As Brennan and Shah (2000b) point out, HEIs are faced with two types of need:
one to change and one to comply. These two needs promote quality assurance
activity in an institution, but as ‘means to ends’ (p. 121). In both cases, the power
tension between accountability and improvement can be identified. For example,
improvement is often sidelined in assurance processes if the focus is on
demonstrating compliance (Harvey & Newton, 2007).
20
The proponents of the improvement-led approach view quality as a process of
transformation (Harvey, 1995; Colling & Harvey, 1995) and shift the focus from
external scrutiny to internal creative innovation (Bauer & Franke-Wikberg, 1993;
Bernhard, 2012). However, subscribers of the accountability-driven approach
believe that improvement can be a result of accountability and is secondary in the
quality monitoring process (Commonwealth of Australia, 1991; Shah &
Jarzabkowski, 2013).
Many quality researchers (see, for example, Brennan et al. 1992; Westerheijden &
Van Vught 1994) suggest that although accountability approaches to quality
assurance may lead to initial improvement, they have no long-term impact on
continuous improvement, especially when there is a requirement for the
production of strategic plans with clear vision and objectives. In the same vein,
Harvey (1995) argued that having to respond to accountability requirements may
negatively affect the resources needed for innovation and improvement.
Further pro-improvement arguments continue with Harvey and Knight (1996)
provided additional pro-improvement arguments, believing that if the institution
puts primacy on accountability and hopes that improvement will result, the
continuous quality improvement process is likely to be impeded rather than
encouraged. Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2007) shared this viewpoint and
recommended that improvement should be the priority aim of the institution, with
accountability as a result.
In the actual implementation of quality assurance in many developed countries in
the world, the above-mentioned power tension seems to be perpetuating. For
example, while many European countries advocate for an improvement-led
approach (Harvey & Williams, 2010; Westerheijden et al., 2013), Australia has
shifted from improvement-led approach back to a compliance-driven approach
(Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013).
21
For quality assurance policy-makers worldwide, the question is how HEIs can
resolve the tension between accountability (i.e. the need to comply) and
improvement (i.e. the need to change).
Harvey (1995, p. 138) proposed the development of a ‘collegiate approach’ as a
solution to the tension between accountability and improvement. This approach
advocates a quality culture of continuous improvement and transformative,
empowering education. The core of this approach is a self-critical collegiate
group who set their own agenda for improvement and strive to fulfil the
improvement plans. The collegiate approach embraces initiative through internal
procedures and demonstrates that accountability is achieved through the
continuous quality improvement process. To further develop this proposal,
Harvey and Newton (2004, 2007) proposed a research-informed improvement-led
approach to quality evaluation, which shifts the focus from externally imposed
procedures to internally generated ones.
A quality improvement approach should fit with external requirements for
accountability (Harvey, 2002a) and that a successful implementation of quality
assurance in HEIs requires a balanced blend of the four quality assurance types
(quality assessment, quality audit, accreditation, and external/peer review)
(Brennan & Shah, 2000a). The expected benefit of quality assurance in higher
education should be ‘products of the external-internal dialogue’ (Harvey, 2002a,
p. 9) through the interaction between external monitoring and internal quality
systems.
As such, accountability and improvement do not have to be polar opposites.
Hoecht (2006) observed that accountability can be geared to promote learning and
innovation rather than bureaucratic control, and does not have to undermine
professional autonomy. Quality assurance is no longer the game of the leaders
and managers or quality assurance agencies, it is now an integral part of academic
life. Academic staff who care more about professional autonomy and
improvement of the teaching and learning quality should have no problem with
the principles of accountability and transparency. Thus, as Hoecht (2006)
22
proposed, it requires a proper debate between higher education policy-makers and
academics on how to achieve quality in teaching and learning while ensuring trust
and professional autonomy.
Further review of the literature on this power tension reinforces Harvey and
Knight’s (1996) opinion that although accountability and improvement are two
faces of the same quality system coin, the focus should be on improvement with
accountability being a consequence. Well-cited scholars (for example, Boyle and
Bowden, 1997; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2007) also believe that if improvement
is properly addressed, the evidence for accountability will be automatically
developed. These authors suggest that an evidence-based approach should be
adopted if the institution is to attend to both accountability and improvement.
In their updated research, Harvey and Newton (2007) reaffirmed the need for
HEIs to address the imbalance between external quality monitoring and internal
quality assurance. Academics and quality practitioners, according to the authors,
should “make” rather than just “take” the quality agenda, by renewing the focus
of quality evaluation on the enhancement of teaching and learning, learner
empowerment and learning experience enrichment. The institutions that adopt this
enhancement-led approach to quality assurance will operate on a self-regulation
basis, and have such tools as an ‘institutional quality enhancement plan’, a
‘teaching and learning improvement strategy’ and ‘systems and mechanisms for
identification and dissemination of good practices’ (Harvey & Newton, 2007, p.
239).
The challenge for HEIs is to implement a ‘hybrid model of quality assurance that
focuses on compliance and improvements with increased emphasis on internal
enhancements and active engagement of all staff’ (Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013, p.
104).
In the subsequent section, the actual implementation of quality assurance in
higher education is reviewed. The issues to be elaborated on include: whether the
23
tension between accountability and improvement can be lessened, and how HEIs
respond to external quality assurance.
2.2 Quality assurance implementation in higher education
2.2.1 Experience from different countries in the world
The implementation of quality assurance in higher education across different
regions and/or countries has shown both convergence and diversity. In relation to
convergence, the common external quality assurance features represented in van
Vught and Westerheijden’s (1994) general model were extended in many
European countries to include more common elements (Billing, 2004) (Please
refer to Section 2.3.1 for more details). Furthermore, quality assurance practices
in Asia-Pacific countries also experienced similarities in terms of the
development of criteria, the role of self-assessment and peer review, the final
decision-making process (the final decision on the accreditation result), the public
disclosure of the outcome and the validity duration of the outcome (accreditation
certificate) (Stella, 2008).
However, the quality assurance literature also acknowledges diversity in the
quality assurance frameworks applied in different countries/regions. For example,
Brennan and Shah (2000a) reported differences in the actual implementation of
van Vught and Westerheijden’s (1994) general model, and concluded that the
model is more suitable for those countries with medium-sized and state-regulated
HEIs. Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002) also observed that efforts to substantially
improve higher education performance have been impeded by the lack of a
universally agreed model for quality assurance (see also Adomssent et al., 2007).
Another area of diversity in national quality assurance framework patterns stems
from the differences in quality cultures. The concern is whether the same type of
quality assurance frameworks can be applied in countries with different cultures
and HEIs with different levels of autonomy (Billing, 2004).
24
Similarly, in other regions, such as in Asia-Pacific countries, variations are
observed in such aspects as unit of quality assurance (institution vs. programs),
nature of the quality assurance process (mandatory vs. voluntary), disclosure of
quality assurance outcomes and post quality assurance follow-up/accountability
(Stella, 2008).
In many developed countries, for example Australia, significant progress has been
made towards developing more comprehensive and integrated approaches to
quality assurance. There has been a real need for customised and multi-faceted
quality assurance approaches to address the complexities of educational contexts,
as many HEIs throughout the world, according to Boyle and Bowden (1997), do
not have well-designed, comprehensive and integrated quality assurance
principles and mechanisms.
2.2.1.1 Quality assurance in developing countries
Compared to the developed countries where the conditions that make quality
possible are already in place (e.g., the needed policies and procedures), and there
have been extensive literature on how quality has been assured and how quality
assurance models have been developed and implemented, documented and
analysed in reports, developing countries face far more difficult situations. In
developing countries, HEIs not only have to assure quality, they also have to
develop the conditions for quality and adjust the standards and procedures that
have been applied elsewhere in developed countries, to their own national
requirements (Lim, 2001; Lemaitre, 2002).
The implementation of quality assurance in developing countries and the adoption
of certain quality assurance types should be seen from a broader, overarching
“globalised view” of the world. As Lemaitre (2002) claims, ‘what we see is not
the imposition of certain definitions of quality by developed countries on
developing ones, but rather the colonisation of universities by a foreign ideology,
imposed by a globalised economy on higher education systems throughout the
world’ (p. 34).
25
So, is it viable that quality principles and standards can be taken from one
(developed) country to another (developing) country with little or no
modifications? It seems that this general idea has been implicit in the quality
assurance literature. However, we should always ponder critical questions,
bearing in mind Harvey’s (1995) main underlying rationale for quality -
accountability and improvement. For example, regarding accountability, who
should universities be accountable to? And how is good “value for money”
defined? or regarding improvement, what is to be improved? In what ways? And
for whose benefit? To put all these questions, and possibly many others, in the
context of developing countries with their different ideologies, quality policy-
makers and practitioners would need to identify what dimensions of the quality
assurance framework would work for their context. This would result in the
realisation of the well-used slogan “think globally, act locally”.
2.2.2 Overview of the quality assurance implementation in higher education in
developed countries
This section provides a brief review of how HEIs, mainly in developed countries,
have implemented quality assurance initiatives.
First, there are several reasons why HEIs need to address quality assurance
initiatives. As Westerheijden (2007) pointed out, in applying economic theories of
behaviour, the relationship between quality assurance and institutional
performance is ‘what gets measured gets rewarded, and what gets rewarded gets
done’ (p. 80). According to the author, this means that HEIs have to adapt to the
external environment and address the quality conception held by external
stakeholders, in order to create their internal mechanisms.
The introduction of performance related funding for universities in the 1980s and
1990s and the “new managerialism” that emphasised transparency and
accountability, associated with external quality assurance, required HEIs to be
responsive to the pressure from the external environment (Turner, 2011).
26
From the institutions’ perspective, they were concerned that more quality
assurance initiatives from the government would lead to ‘more oversight of their
operations, and greater compliance that may limit their autonomy, flexibility and
responsiveness’ (Chalmers, 2007 p. 11). Since accreditation became a
predominant approach to quality assurance in higher education, around 2000,
HEIs have had to build a ‘culture of evidence’ that allows for ‘serious, sustained
and thematic investigations of effectiveness’ (Ewell, 2007, p. 132). For many
small institutions, this could be a burden and require a high cost. Also, many
academics raised their concern that quality initiatives involve opportunity cost as
they have to spend time on compiling statistics, rather than on research and
academic tasks (Harvey & Knight, 1996; Lomas, 2007). It addition, it is argued,
compliance-driven quality lacks focus on enhancement as more energy is devoted
to meeting external compliance requirements, rather than building internal
capacity for quality assurance and ongoing improvements (Nilsson & Wahlen,
2000; Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013)
In response to the external quality assurance policy, universities may play the
‘compliance game’ by using their resources to comply with regulatory standards
while ignoring other ‘more difficult-to-measure dimensions of higher education’,
such as the improvement of teaching and learning (Blackmur. 2007, p. 36). In
other words, they could choose accountability and satisfaction of external
stakeholders as their primary goal.
Alternatively, as Ewell (2007) claimed, universities can take advantage of the
external quality review by using the analysis to their advantage, seeing it as
beneficial to their internal operation or development. This happens when
institutional leaders regard external quality reviews as opportunities to gather
useful information and at the same time enhance the reputation of the institution.
Many institutions in the USA have chosen to seize this opportunity (Ewell, 2007).
This ‘high-stake move in the Quality Game’, as Ewell named it (p.139), describes
the incorporation of the planning/management assets of the institution with the
“academic core” in responding to external review requirements. This could
27
facilitate improvement in institutional performance while achieving
accountability.
Another successful way of responding to quality assurance has been through
integrating the management process of the HEI with the quality assurance system.
For example, the evaluative information produced from the quality assurance
system can be used as feedback for the management processes for continuous
improvement (Kettunen, 2008).
In order to facilitate both compliance to external quality assurance and
improvement/ enhancement of internal performance, it has been argued that
institutions need to balance compliance and improvement by further emphasising
and encouraging innovation and self-improvement among staff members (Barnett,
1992; Hodson & Thomas, 2003). With quality enhancement, an institution’s
endeavour to self-improve and be innovative in its approach and ideas would
drive the quality systems forward (Hodson & Thomas, 2003). However, with
compliance, institutions would respond to external forces and thus, quality
assurance becomes a policy in name only. It has been argued that if institutions
want to achieve both ends of compliance-improvement/ enhancement, a cultural
shift in the institution is required (i.e. a quality embedded culture or culture of
continuous quality improvement) (Hodson & Thomas, 2003; Lim, 2001; Lomas,
2004; Barnett, 1992; Harvey & Stensaker, 2008).
Although recent models of quality assurance represent researchers’ endeavours to
balance the improvement-accountability dimensions of quality assurance and
address the administrative-academic interface in higher education, it is still
difficult to use quality assurance to empower academic actors (teaching and
research staff, or students) (Stensaker, Rosa & Westerheijden, 2007).
Furthermore, it appeared that the institutional consequences of quality assurance
have not yet contributed much to improvement of teaching and learning, or to
transformation of the student learning experience (Stensaker, Rosa &
Westerheijden, 2007).
28
Yet, the introduction of quality assurance has actually caused cultural changes to
take place in HEIs: ownership of changes and a more evidence-based approach to
decision-making (Brennan & Shah, 2000b; Westerheijden et al., 2013; Harvey,
2009).
In short, a number of researchers have argued that HEIs need to respond to the
pressure from governments in a more pro-active manner, to become more ‘value-
for-money’, more ‘relevant to social and economic needs’, more accessible, and
more capable to ‘ensure comparability of provision and procedures within and
between institutions’ (Harvey & Newton, 2007, p. 229). Also, quality assurance
should not be seen as a policy game among policy-makers, quality assurance
agencies, and institutional managers. Instead, HEIs should create and foster a
sustainable quality culture and manage organisational changes, involve all
stakeholders into quality management practices, and enhance both the external
and internal dimension of quality assurance (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008;
Westerheijden, 2007; Dill, 1995, 1999; Stensaker, Rosa & Westerheijden, 2007;
Srikanthan & Darymple, 2007).
The next section explores quality assurance models and frameworks that have
been proposed and implemented internationally. These represent empirical and
research-informed endeavours to resolve the power tension between
accountability and improvement, and help HEIs to ultimately respond to quality
assurance more effectively.
2.3 Quality assurance frameworks and models to date
As quality assurance adoption depends on diverse perspectives on quality
dimensions, there has been no universally accepted conceptual framework for
quality assurance in higher education.
Quality assurance literature has seen the emergence of various models and
frameworks developed for different regions at different times. At first, there were
attempts to apply models used in industrial quality management to the higher
29
education context, such as the Total Quality Management6 (TQM) model
(Harvey, 1995; Houston, 2007), Business Process Reengineering model7 (BPR)
(Ahmad et al., 2007), or ISO 90008 (Doherty, 1995). These quality management
models focus on a culture of continuous improvement in organisational processes,
the role of leadership and management for change, customer satisfaction, and
organisational outcomes. However, the industrial quality management models
seem to be more compatible with the service/administration functions of HEIs
(e.g. managing student admission, resource allocation, support services), rather
than the academic functions of a university, given that the sector deals with
human beings (students) (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002; Boyle & Bowden,
1997). This raised the need for scholars and practitioners in the quality domain to
adapt or develop new models, integrating the assurance of quality in teaching and
learning.
More recently, various new models for educational quality management have
been developed and proposed (see, for example, Cheng & Tam, 1997; Penington,
1998; Dill, 1999; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002, 2004, 2007; Perellon, 2007).
For the purposes of this study, eight models were selected for review. These
models were identified as those that were most articulated and/or well referenced
in the literature, and relevant to the Vietnamese context. Each is discussed below,
in chronological order.
6 A management approach to long–term success through customer satisfaction. In TQM, all
members of an organisation participate in improving processes, products, services, and the culture
in which they work. See: ASQ website (http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/total-quality-
management/overview/overview.html) 7 A business management strategy, originally pioneered in the early 1990s, focusing on the
analysis and design of workflows and business processes within an organisation. BPR aims to help
organisations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve
customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors (Wikipedia). 8 ISO 9000 is a set of international standards on quality management and quality assurance
developed to help companies effectively document the quality system elements to be implemented
to maintain an efficient quality system. They are not specific to any one industry and can be
applied to organisations of any size. It is designed and published by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO), a specialised international agency for standardisation composed of the
national standards bodies of more than 160 countries. See: ASQ website (http://asq.org/learn-
about-quality/iso-9000/overview/overview.html)
30
2.3.1 The general model of quality assessment in higher education (GMQA)
In an attempt to develop a general model for quality assurance in Europe and
North America, van Vught and Westerheijden (1994) observed and analysed the
common elements of the quality assurance frameworks in operation within
European countries (France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom [UK]), the
USA and Canada.
Whilst the various systems observed had their own features, which were applied
in their specific contexts, there were common elements that could be combined
into a core general higher education quality assessment system. These common
elements encompassed: 1) independent organisation of the procedure (e.g. quality
assurance agencies); 2) self-evaluation (or self-assessment, self-study); 3) site
visits (external peer-review); 4) publication of evaluation reports; and 5) funding
possibilities (e.g. increased funding from the government to successful HEIs).
The first four elements of Van Vught and Westerheijden’s model have been
widely accepted as the four-stage model, while the fifth element – ‘an indirect
link with [funding] decision-making’, has not been generally agreed on, due to the
fact that funding could be the result of the quality assessment in different contexts
with different funding bodies (Westerheijden, 1999, p.240).
The underpinning theory of this model is that both the dimension of providing
accountability of the historical French model (external authority had the power to
decide what should be studied and who could be allowed to teach) and the
dimension of peer-review of the traditional English model (the community of the
fellows could judge the quality of their colleagues) are key elements of any
quality management system in higher education, and should be incorporated. Van
Vught and Westerheijden’s model has been applied as a common framework of
external quality assurance, assessing the “fitness for purpose” dimension of
quality.
31
2.3.2 The transformative model (TM)
The transformative model was developed for European countries by Harvey and
Knight (1996). It is rooted in the transformative notion that quality should focus
on enhancing and empowering participants. This model highlights the
development of a quality culture of continuous improvement. The authors
proposed that the primary focus of the quality process should be shifted from
external scrutiny to internal effective action. This continuous quality
improvement process is driven from two directions: bottom-up empowerment and
top-down auditing.
In Harvey and Knight’s (1996) view, bottom-up empowerment leading to quality
improvement requires the development of effective collegiate teams working
together to identify quality targets, planning for implementation and reporting on
outcomes. Bottom-up empowerment involves those participants who can affect
the improvement of quality - the student, the teacher and the researcher.
Top-down auditing leading to quality improvement requires an effective external
monitoring process. It takes into account a range of concerns and different
stakeholder perspectives in an open, self-critical manner. Auditing operates at two
levels: the internal level on a regular and comprehensive basis within the
institution, and the external level, on a periodic, irregular basis, by a national or
regional agency.
In a continuous quality improvement process, institutional management does not
direct or manage quality but provides a context and enabling factors to facilitate
quality improvement and quality culture development. The emphasis is on
collegiate teamwork, the dissemination of good practice and the delegation of
responsibility for quality. In the transformative model, accountability will result
as a consequence of a planned and transparent quality improvement process.
2.3.3 The comprehensive educational quality assurance model (CEQAM)
Boyle and Bowden (1997) proposed the CEQAM based on their distillation of
key ideas from previous literature on quality assurance and higher education
32
culture and practice. As they viewed it, the foci and requirements for
comprehensive quality assurance approaches include: 1) an overarching vision,
purpose and plans of the institution; 2) effective leadership and management; 3)
people (including human resource management, professional development,
effective communication etc.); 4) customer orientation that includes knowledge of
needs and expectations, client satisfaction and management; 5) evaluation,
information and continual quality improvement; and 6) structures, policies and
procedures that optimise the effectiveness of processes.
According to the authors, the model needs to be interpreted in light of the
enabling conditions (including the felt need for comprehensive quality assurance,
leaders’ commitment to quality assurance development and quality culture,
adequate resources for quality assurance etc.) and basic principles and values
(such as a primary focus on continual quality improvement, and accountability as
an important consequence of quality assurance). The overall model encompasses
a set of key elements integrated to form a quality assurance framework, as below:
Key output elements: evidence-based quality improvements in student
learning, and evidence for accountability requirements
Key enabling/process elements: institutional vision, values, strategic
goals; program quality assurance system; faculty development program;
assessment of learning; and faculty evaluation system
Key support systems: enabling policies, structures, resources and support
groups
The model can be perceived in an integrated way. For example, the three enabling
elements program quality assurance system, faculty development, and assessment
of student learning - all influence and determine the critical outcome element (i.e.
quality and continuous quality improvement in student learning). There is an
interrelationship between program quality assurance system and faculty
development, faculty development and faculty evaluation, and assessment of
learning and program quality assurance.
33
The distinguishing feature of this model is that it involves the key elements of
educational environments that influence educational quality management. It also
has continual quality improvement in student learning as its primary goal, with
accountability a consequence.
Boyle and Bowden’s model is illustrated below.
Figure 1: The conceptual diagram of Boyle and Bowden’s (1997) model
Note: CQI stands for continuous quality improvement
2.3.4 The responsive university model (RUM)
This model for a ‘responsive university’ was proposed by Tierney (1998,
Chapters 3 & 4), based on his collation of the different views of leading authors
on educational quality. The assumption of this model is that quality relationships
are characterised by mutuality and equality between various stakeholders. This
should be viewed from different perspectives, namely students, community and
national points of view. In order to become an institution of excellence, or a
responsive university, the institution itself needs to be student-centred in
programs, community-centred in outreach activities, and nation-centred in
research.
34
As Tierney (1998) argued, the universities of the twenty-first century face a
dilemmatic challenge: scarce resources and a requirement to set high goals. Thus,
efficiency of operations is essential to achieve high performance. This requires
the institution to focus on the learning needs of the students and implement a
greater focus on teaching, supported by appropriate resource allocations.
Academic programs need to be regularly reviewed, in line with internal and
external demands and changes. This model emphasises the development of new
internal and external relationships through communication and partnerships.
2.3.5 The university of learning model (ULM)
Bowden and Marton’s (1998, 2003) model has some similarities with Harvey and
Knight’s (1996) TM of quality. This University of Learning model (ULM), like
the TM and the RUM, emphasised the enhancement of student learning and a
proactive collaboration among academic teams in education delivery.
The authors examined the organisational features of higher education from a
pedagogical perspective to facilitate a dynamic learning process. As such, the
model highlights the synergetic involvement of academics in course/research
teams, in developing a holistic view of students’ competencies, and a collective
consciousness of what is common and what is complementary. This is the basis
for the academic teams to enable learners to differentiate options, and focus on
the most relevant solution when facing problems and challenges in different
contexts.
The authors argue that teaching, research and service are considered the core of
the university system, and the ultimate goal of a university is to prepare the
individual and the community to face future problems and turn challenges into
opportunities, based on formed knowledge. In this model, there is a shift from an
input-oriented educational approach to a learning-focused approach. This in turn
requires HEIs to shift their focus onto policies and activities centred on student
learning.
35
2.3.6 The academic learning organisation framework (ALOF)
The concept of a learning organisation has received extensive emphasis in
organisational literature (see, for example, Senge, 1990; Garvin, 1993; Goncalves,
2012; Maula, 2006; Buckle, 1998; Wick & Leon, 1995). This concept was
developed based on earlier more extensive literature on organisational learning
(March, 1991, Huber, 1991), which involved the study of the phenomena of
learning within organisational contexts.
Garvin (1993) argued that the concept of a learning organisation is associated
with the purposeful and systematic acquisition of knowledge (both new
knowledge and knowledge of its operations), and the processes and structures that
facilitate these activities. Garvin’s learning organisation framework was
developed based on the assumption that in a competitive context, an organisation
must adapt its core processes through the search for, and application of, new
knowledge. A number of other authors broadly agreed: for example, Buckle
(1998) viewed a learning organisation as one with increased problem-solving
capability and behaviour change leading to improved performance at the
individual, team and organisational level. Wick and Leon (1995) defined the
learning organisation as one that ‘continually improves by rapidly creating and
refining the capabilities needed for future successes’ (p. 299). According to these
authors, the learning organisation is the ideal type of organisation in which
learning is maximised.
Dill (1997, 1999) adopted Garvin’s framework and further developed it into the
academic learning organisation framework (ALOF). In his view universities can
respond to changes in the environment (for example, pressure for academic
accountability and a more competitive higher education environment) by
becoming “learning organisations”. Dill (1999) analysed twelve university case
studies drawn from the Institute for Management in Higher Education (IMHE)
project on the impact of academic quality assessment on institutional management
and decision-making. From this analysis, Dill suggested the following distinctive
elements of the academic learning organisation:
36
Culture of evidence into academic problem-solving (systematic problem-
solving employing objective measures and scientific method)
Improved coordination of teaching units (observing basic processes to
understand how they work and can be improved)
Learning from others (seeking knowledge from colleagues that can be used
for academic research and improvement of basic processes of teaching and
learning)
University-wide coordination of “learning” (developing pan-university
structures for providing more effective coordination and support)
transferring these among academic units (Dill, 1999, pp. 148-150).
The implications of this framework confirm the adaptive responses of universities
to the new environment. As Dill pointed out, the literature consistently showed
that universities are internally restructuring themselves to improve academic
quality, enhance innovative research, and improve entrepreneurial capacities.
Dill’s framework puts focus on the improvement of the teaching and learning
processes. This model of learning organisations emphasises the internal processes
that could enhance sustainable institutional internal quality assurance, and
advocates the transformation dimension of quality.
2.3.7 The instrumental model (IM)
The instrumental model (IM) of quality assurance has been used widely in
developed countries, albeit with marked differences in implementation (Lim,
2001). This model firstly requires the statement of purpose of the university to be
in line with the national goals, to be “fitness for purpose”, then the quality
management system is established to assess whether the institution can achieve
this purpose.
In the IM, all quality assurance systems in higher education follow the same
sequence, as below:
37
Identify the mission or purpose of the university
Identify the functions that the university needs to perform to fulfil the
mission
Identify the objectives for each function and set quantitative and
qualitative performance indicators for these
Establish a quality assurance management system (that the university uses
to ensure that these objectives are achieved)
Establish a quality audit system to evaluate the performance of the
university in the conduct of these functions and identify improvement
areas
This model depicts the process of developing and maintaining a quality assurance
system; it does not take into account the elements of the educational environment
that influence quality of climate, process and outcome.
2.3.8 The holistic model for quality management in education (HMQME)
Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, 2004, 2007) developed the holistic model for
quality management in education (HMQME) based on their synthesis of other
quality models and approaches, including Duke (1992), Harvey and Knight
(1996), Haworth and Conrad (1997), Bowden and Marton (1998), and Tierney
(1998, 1999). The HMQME was grounded on the assumption that a model for
quality management in higher education needs to be more holistic to meet the
requirements of the two core functions of universities: service and education.
The core features of this model include: 1) a clear focus on “transformation” of
the learner and of the institution, “enhancing” them through the process of
acquiring knowledge and skills, and ultimately “empowering” them; 2) a
synergistic collaboration at the learning interface, with the underpinning idea that
multi-actor collegial and supportive cultures will facilitate high quality programs;
and 3) a significant commitment to improve learning at all levels, supported by
senior management. A causal loop can be observed as follows: increased
commitment leads to increased collaboration, which, in turn, facilitates
transformation leading to improved quality outcomes.
38
The major elements of the model include institutional transformation for learning,
teaching for transformation, assessment for transformation, quality improvement,
and quality monitoring for learning. The model has various implications for the
transformation of the institution, such as: a transformative type of learning
(student-centred and learning-oriented) should be fostered, rather than a
transmissive type of learning (teacher-centred and content-oriented); shared
awareness of common goals and collective consciousness will make the
institution a flexible dynamic organisation to cope with the changing
environment; and there should be a paradigm shift regarding: 1) teaching as a key
performance indicator; 2) collegial processes; and 3) the role of leadership.
Similar to the CEQAM proposed by Boyle and Bowden (1997), in the HMQME,
the focus of the quality system should be on improvement with accountability as a
consequence.
2.3.9 A synthesis of the key elements of the models under study
In this section, the synthesis of the key elements of the above reviewed models
and frameworks is discussed. This synthesis lays the groundwork for the
development of the conceptual framework for this study, which will be presented
in the next chapter.
The review of models and frameworks indicates that quality assurance in higher
education originated from industry quality management models with some
adaptation. The elements of a continuous improvement culture, leadership and
management were maintained in the educational quality models. The significant
adaptation related to the integration of such elements as students’ learning and
collaboration in education delivery.
There are both similarities and differences in the elements covered in the
reviewed quality assurance models.
Regarding commonalities, in the Transformative model, the Comprehensive
educational quality assurance and the Holistic models, a culture of continuous
39
improvement is at the centre of quality assurance, with accountability as a result,
and the transformation of learning is advocated. These models focus on the
internal processes and the conditions that drive quality improvement at the
student-staff interface. The Transformative model, the Responsive university
model, the University of learning model, the Academic learning organisation
framework, and the Holistic model all emphasise the student learning experience
and the dynamic collaboration of academic teams in education delivery.
In all the reviewed models, the engagement and active participation of academic
staff, students, and administrators in the quality activities is highlighted. The role
of stakeholder expectations and satisfaction is also an important feature of these
quality assurance models. Compared to the industrial quality management
models, the stakeholders involved in these educational quality models are more
diversified, and the students, while the product of education, are at the same time,
considered important stakeholders.
As for the differences between the reviewed models, the Comprehensive
educational quality assurance model and the Holistic model for quality appear to
be more comprehensive than the others. This is because they cover more elements
that constitute quality, including leadership and management, policies and
procedures, cooperation and collaboration among the different units of the
institution, the engagement of staff, students and administrators in the quality
assurance practices, and creating a culture of continuous quality improvement
with accountability as an inevitable result.
Another difference is that while most models focus on internal improvement and
transformation of learning, as well as the condition and processes needed for this,
the General model of quality assessment and the Instrumental model focus on
accountability and the processes/procedures that the institution needs to follow to
achieve its accountability goal. These two models seem to be more generic and
procedural, while the others allow for multi- faceted interaction of the elements,
making the quality mechanism more like a web or a network.
40
Building the institution into an academic learning organisation could be seen as
an attempt to synthesise the essence of the quality management models for higher
education and implement them through the adoption of learning community
principles. This could provide a balanced approach towards educational, service
and behavioural excellence in higher education (Srykanthan & Dalrymple, 2002).
In short, the ultimate aim of the quality assurance mechanism proposed in most of
the reviewed models is improvement with accountability as a result.
The table below summarises the main features of the reviewed quality assurance
models. The ‘’ mark is used to indicate the focal points of each model.
Focus
Quality Assurance models
GMQA
Europe
TM
Europe
CEQAM
Australia
RUM
USA
ULM
Europe
ALOF
USA
IM
UK
HMQME
Australia
Accountability
Transformational
learning
Culture of
continuous
improvement
Policies/procedures
Organisational
structure
Leadership and
management
Stakeholder
expectations and
satisfaction
Engagement of
staff, students and
administrators
Partnership and
collaboration
Sequence
Table 1: Summary of main features of quality assurance models
Notes: GMQA: The General model of quality assessment in Higher Education (van Vught &
Weisterheijden, 1994); TM: The Transformative Model (Harvey & Knight, 1996); CEQAM: The
Comprehensive Educational Quality Assurance Model (Boyle & Bowden, 1997); RUM: The
Responsive University Model (Tierney, 1998); ULM: The University of Learning Model (Bowden
& Marton, 1998, 2003); ALOF: The Academic Learning Organisation Framework (Dill, 1999);
41
IM: The Instrumental Model (Lim, 2001); HMQME: The Holistic Model for Quality management
in Education (Srikanthan & Darymple, 2002, 2004, 2007)
2.3.10 Summary
To summarise, considering the key features of the above reviewed models and
frameworks of quality assurance in higher education, it can be seen that an
international convergence has emerged. Quality assurance models are getting
more comprehensive, addressing the two core functions of universities, service
and education, taking into consideration all the involving elements of the
educational environment. A clear focus of these models is on the improvement
dimension of quality. This requires internal changes from the institutions, in terms
of organisational structure, the role of senior management and leadership, team
interaction and a shared vision within the academic community, collaboration and
commitment. A culture of continuous improvement is seen to be the key to
institutional success.
A substantial part of the quality assurance literature deals with quality assurance
models and frameworks. It should be noted, according to Lemaitre (2002), that
every model is constituted with a significant cluster of elements. Some of these
are essential to the key aspects of the models, some being contextual factors
without which the model cannot properly function. Therefore, when any model is
imported to a new higher education environment, the cluster is broken because
the context is different. In this case, the model itself needs to be redefined, taking
into account such factors as the current condition of the institution and its
intended goals, the requirements of the student body, the features of research, the
need for academic autonomy, or the demands of external stakeholders.
2.4 Demystifying quality assurance terminology
In this chapter, several quality assurance terms have been mentioned. In the next
chapters, these terms will reappear here and there. In order to assist the
consistency, below is a short glossary that the researcher used.
42
Process-oriented vs. product-oriented quality assurance: Process-oriented quality
assurance aims at ensuring the quality of the whole educational process, whereas
product-oriented quality assurance focuses on one-off jobs as program
accreditation, attaining standards.
Quality assurance framework/ mechanism/ system: quality assurance framework
refers to theoretical or conceptual framework developed for quality assurance;
quality assurance system refers to the legal and regulatory framework, policies
and procedures, measures and indicators established for the implementation of
quality assurance; quality assurance mechanism refers to how quality assurance is
implemented, how the system, policies and procedures are operationalised.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the conceptualisation and contextualisation of the study have been
presented through a review of relevant literature. Conceptual considerations
regarding quality and quality assurance, as well as related issues, such as the
tension between accountability and improvement, have been provided. Contextual
considerations discussed in this chapter include the experience from different
regions and countries in implementing quality assurance, and how HEIs in
developed countries have implemented external quality assurance. Finally, a
selection of well-referenced quality assurance models and frameworks were
reviewed. This chapter provides the theoretical constructs for the conceptual
framework for the current study.
The next chapter presents the conceptual framework and its components on
quality assurance developed for this study. Additionally, as quality assurance
initiatives have created important changes in HEIs, the relevant literature on
organisational theories in higher education, organisational management and
change management are reviewed. This will assist in the interpretation of the
conceptual framework at the operational level, to be discussed in the later
chapters.
43
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE
STUDY
Introduction
This chapter sets out the theoretical foundation of this study. Organisational
theories provide valuable insights in this regard, as the focus of this study is on
organisational level practices. The first part of the chapter, Section 3.1, examines
two sets of organisational theories. The first is applicable to organisations in
general; the second underlies the operations of higher education institutions. The
main theories are presented with their key features. The next part, Section 3.2,
presents the theoretical framework of the study, developed based on the existing
quality assurance models and frameworks. Section 3.3 elaborates on the
foundation for the theoretical framework, that is the factors that drive quality
assurance and quality improvement at the institutional level. Section 3.4 provides
a review of organisational change management theories, as the implementation of
quality assurance should be treated as an important organisational change.
3.1 Organisational theories
Colleges and universities belong to the oldest9 type of organisations, with
enabling governance and administration that has helped them survive and sustain
through changes (Sporn, 2007). These institutions are unique organisations
differing in major respects from other forms of organisations, being ‘extremely
ambiguous, complex and politically charged settings’ (Manning, 2013, p. 246). In
order to understand the complexity of HEI functioning, their operations and how
they are managed or controlled, the members of these institutions (managers,
administrators, faculty, and external stakeholders) need to be viewed through
organisational theory lenses. Without such understanding of how universities
9 The first university in the sense of higher learning and degree awarding institution, was
established in 1088 - University of Bologna in Italy, a creation of medieval Europe. Source:
Wikipedia
44
work, these internal and external higher education stakeholders have no clear
clues as to why their institutions are difficult to manage, resistant to change, or
fail to adapt to environmental changes. As Manning (2013, p. 3) stated, ‘Without
knowledge of organisational structure, faculty are hard pressed to make policy
decisions regarding curriculum and other issues; trustees struggle to determine
effective institutional purposes; and administrators fight to keep up with the rapid
pace of change’.
By understanding the theories underpinning the functioning of HEIs, such
academic and strategic tasks as program development, curriculum shaping,
decision-making, policy and planning can be effectively performed.
Although it requires the combination of different organisational theories and
perspectives to comprehensively understand the ever-changing world of higher
education, due to the focus of this study (how HEIs implement their quality
assurance practices), the following theories are reviewed:
Manning’s (2013) four organisational theories in higher education:
organised anarchy, collegium, bureaucratic, and cultural.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame model: structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic frames.
These theories provide useful theoretical lenses for the interpretation of data, to
be specifically presented in Chapter 6.
3.1.1 Organisational frames
With reference to the vast literature on organisational studies (see, for example,
Bolman & Deal, 1984; Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Heffron, 1989; Pfeffer, 1992;
Pieters & Young, 2000; Donaldson, 2001; Kezar, 2001a; Van de Ven & Poole,
1995, 2005; Lawler & Worley, 2006), Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame
model seems the most comprehensive and applicable to the case under
investigation. It provides a multiple perspective approach to study an
organisation. The four frames are: structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic.
45
The structural approach focuses on the architecture of the organisation, how
teams and groups, units and sub-units are organised and structured, how roles and
responsibilities are specified, and how goals and policies are framed, in order to
get the desired results. This approach also highlights the need for organisations to
go through restructuring when facing problems or opportunities, such as
environmental changes, technology changes, organisational growth, and
leadership changes.
The human resource lens emphasises how organisations can be tailored to meet
human needs, to improve human resource management, and build positive
interpersonal and group dynamics. The essence of this frame is that the
characteristics of organisations and their staff shape what they do for each other,
and the relationship between an organisation and its people is mutually beneficial.
The political view looks at organisations as political arenas that host diverse
individual and group interests. This frame focuses on how to deal with power and
conflict, and highlights the need to understand and manage political dynamics, in
cases of scarce resources, and the differences among coalitions, regarding values,
beliefs, interests and perceptions.
The symbolic frame focuses on issues of meaning and faith, how humans make
sense of the world they live in. It requires organisations to build a culture that
unites people around shared values and beliefs. It puts rituals, ceremonies, stories
and symbols at the heart of organisational life.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame model fits with any organisational study, as
it sees organisations as multiple realities. When all four frames are applied, the
integration offers a comprehensive, multi-faceted design for understanding
organisational practices and responding to needs for change and realignment.
46
3.1.2 Organisational theories in higher education
3.1.2.1 The organised anarchy theory
Manning (2013) reviewed the organised anarchy theory that Cohen and March
(1986, cited in Manning 2013) first proposed. This theory characterises HEIs as
having ‘Problematic goals, Unclear technology and Fluid participation’
(Manning, 2013, p. 29-31). These characteristics make HEIs profoundly different
from other forms of organisations.
First, as Manning (2013) claimed, HEIs have unclear and even ambiguous goals,
and the primary goals embed a conflicting nature. For example, the three-part
primary purpose of teaching-research-service entails arguments on whether
teaching and research are mutually exclusive or the teaching mission should be
the primary responsibility of academic staff who do research as well. The conflict
about the appropriate goals for a HEI happens during the involvement of the
internal and external stakeholders, as different stakeholders hold different views
about what should be the primary goal for a HEI. Yet, it could be argued that
many goals, even conflicting ones, exist within the same institution. Therefore,
the institution can become more adaptable when they diversify their attention and
efforts in many areas to achieve a number of societal purposes at the same time.
The second characteristic of the HEI, as an organised anarchy, is their use of
unclear technology. In each HEI, technologies must be employed to meet the
needs of different groups of participants. However, HEIs can hardly find clear
technologies as students learn differently, teachers apply different methodologies,
and researchers require different methodologies and approaches.
The third characteristic of organised anarchy is fluid participation. This represents
the varied involvement and duration of the institutional members - students,
faculty, administrative staff, leaders and managers. Fluid participation in the
organised anarchy often results in multi-directional communication. This affects
the expectations of what can or cannot be accomplished, and the already multi-
faceted decision-making processes in the institution.
47
Another characteristic of organised anarchy, proposed by Baldridge et al. (1978,
cited in Manning 2013) is environmental vulnerability. Accordingly, higher
education is particularly affected by environmental change, due to its dependence
on tuition, national and international economies, quality measures and the fluidity
of the client groups. Furthermore, the emergence of new competition,
internationalisation of higher education, together with other pressures from
government and the market have intensified the impact of the external
environment on higher education.
3.1.2.2 The collegium theory
As Manning (2013) highlighted, multiple organisational perspectives often occur
simultaneously within the university, but the most common combination is
collegium and bureaucracy. The complexity of organisational structures in
universities, and the multiple ways of operating within the same institution stem
from this combination.
Birnbaum (1988) analysed the coexistence of collegial and bureaucratic aspects of
higher education. In this analysis, the collegium reflects the perspectives of the
faculty/academic body and the bureaucratic reflects the administrators’
perspectives. For example, the goals of the institution from the collegial
perspective are teaching, research and service, while from the bureaucratic
perspective, the university is to achieve broader organisational goals and to
maintain standards of performance. For another element, authority, collegium
authority is decentralised and comes from disciplines and faculty’s expertise,
while bureaucratic authority is legitimate (or entitled power), centralised and
comes from the position of leadership.
Manning (2013) argued that the collegial perspective contains strengths and
weaknesses that add to the complexity of HEIs. On the positive side, collegiums
provide a structure that facilitates faculty autonomy, creates disciplinary
communities, and promotes participatory decision-making, planning and policy
making at the institutional level. On the negative side, collegiums may engender
48
competition among like-discipline peers, separate faculty who emphasise research
from faculty who focus on institution-based affairs, and may result in faculty
disengagement in institutional affairs.
Such aspects of the collegial perspective as faculty self-governance, peer review,
curriculum control, and tenure represent key challenges in higher education.
3.1.2.3 The bureaucracy theory
Bureaucracy theorists (Fayol, [1916] 2005; Ferguson 1985) argue that
organisations should follow the natural order, and adopt a hierarchical, pyramid
shaped structure. Therefore, the key features of bureaucracies can be listed as
follows: Organisational structure is hierarchical. Staff are recruited and appointed
based on their expertise and qualifications, and work in divisions of
specialisation. The authority is concentrated at the top of the hierarchy and
decisions are made top-down. Operations follow processes and procedures. The
human resource is managed based on the expectation that long-term employment
is possible and that stable personnel enables efficiency in the organisation.
As Manning (2013) observed, one aspect of the bureaucracy that challenges HEIs
is that management could be centralised, as envisioned by the original
bureaucracy theorists, or decentralised. Centralisation ensures standardisation and
consistency; while decentralisation allows for multiple purposes to coexist within
the institution and lower level management can make up for leadership oversight
at a higher level. This centralisation-decentralisation tension in academic
bureaucracies is intensified by the professional and disciplinary expertise of the
deans and faculty. Decentralisation is more appropriate to current HEIs due to
their size and nature.
Regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the bureaucracy perspective, Manning
(2013) stated that this model provides a means to organise complex tasks while
ensuring standardisation and objectivity. However, routinisation and
standardisation can lead to red tape and impede the adaptability and
responsiveness of the institution to external changes.
49
In today’s higher education, the bureaucracy model can be applied to strategic
management in the institution through capacity building (Toma, 2010). The
knowledge of the inter-relationship between organisational units enables leaders
to synchronise the organisation parts/elements as goals, structure, governance,
resources, policy and procedures, and culture, in ways that build capacity and
achieve the purpose undertaken. This approach can help leaders determine future
goals and development areas, as they are fully aware of the capacity of the
organisation as well as the capacity needed to undertake those initiatives.
3.1.2.4 The cultural theory
As Manning (2013) argued, organisational culture first became a concern for
managers and researchers in the 1980s, with Japan’s emergence as an economic
power, business globalisation and the disillusionment with hard management.
Theorists were looking for approaches that could better explain the intangible
aspects of institutional life. Parker (2000) summarised the need to supplement the
‘hard S’s of strategy, structure and system’ with the ‘soft S’s of style, skills and
staff’ (p. 21). Newton (2002) pointed out that organisational culture provides an
important context for the ‘management of policy initiatives’ (p. 187), combining
both constraints and opportunities. More specifically, a cultural lens could
provide multi-faceted insights into the decision-making, planning and program
development processes within HEIs.
According to Manning (2013) organisational culture theory can take two different
approaches. The first, the corporate culture approach, assumes that culture can be
managed and that leaders are responsible for the development of culture in the
organisation. The second, the anthropological framework, proposes that all
members of the organisation play a role in shaping the culture of the institution
through individual and collective experiences. This model enables internal and
external stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of the intangible aspects of
institutional life.
50
To sum up, the above reviewed perspectives on organisational theories would
help all players in the higher education sector (faculty, internal administrators,
external stakeholders, and students) to acquire a more complex and
comprehensive understanding of the operations of the HEI.
3.1.2.5 The interconnectedness between organisational theories and quality
assurance
The preceding sub-sections have provided a brief review of the four
organisational theories that underlie the operations of HEIs. Although there are
other ways of categorising the organisational behaviour patterns of HEIs, as
apparent in the organisational theories and behaviour literature, the above
reviewed classification of organisational theories in higher education is the most
current. It is also based on numerous sources on the subject, and provides clear
guidelines for practical implications.
These organisational theories also underpin an institution’s choice to adopt and
implement a certain quality assurance model or framework. Only when the people
involved and in charge understand how their institution is organised, and what the
contextual factors and key features of its organisation are, can they make a
decision on which quality assurance model to adopt, as well as which dimension
or focal element of the selected model should receive more attention and more
investment (Lemaitre, 2002; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2007; Sporn, 2007).
With reference to the quality assurance models and frameworks reviewed in the
last section of Chapter 2, we can identify the link between certain focal elements
of these models and the above organisational theories. Examples include the TM
model vs. the collegium theory; the CEQAM and ALOF models vs. the organised
anarchy theory; the culture of continuous improvement (the focus of most
models) vs. the cultural theory; and the leadership and management dimension
(the mutual compatibility between the academic and service functions in many
models) vs. the bureaucracy theory.
51
As Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2007) highlighted, the effective implementation of
a quality assurance model can contribute to the match between educational and
organisational theories in HEIs. On the other hand, the organisational behaviour
norms typical of each organisational theory are fundamental prerequisites for
implementing the quality assurance model. It is, therefore, noticeable that there is
an interrelation between organisational theories and quality assurance models.
There are some related studies in the extant literature that reflect this
interconnectedness between organisational theories and the implementation of
quality assurance in universities. For example, Kezar (2008), in her study of the
implementation of equity initiatives in universities, found that organisational
contextual factors had a powerful influence on the implementation of equity
initiatives. Csizmadia (2006), in a study on quality management in Hungarian
higher education, found that organisational features such as organisational
complexity, leadership and the decision-making process, influence the pace and
the scope of quality management in universities. The detailed findings include:
the more complex the institution, the slower the pace of quality management
implementation; the higher the commitment of leaders, the faster the pace and the
wider the scope of quality management implementation. Newton (2002)
emphasised the importance of taking contextual factors into full account, as these
factors influence the implementation as well as the reshaping of quality policy. In
general, these studies demonstrate the relevance of organisational theories in
analysing the adoption and practice of quality assurance at the institutions.
In the subsequent section, a theoretical framework for the current study is
presented. The main theoretical constructs identified from the quality assurance
literature and elements of the organisational theories in higher education were
combined to draw the dimensions of the framework.
52
3.2 Theoretical framework of the study
In this section, the theoretical framework of this study is presented, followed by
the elaboration on the dimensions of the framework in the next section.
This framework could be interpreted as follows: in order to have a viable quality
assurance mechanism, the HEI, first of all, needs to address the system level
quality assurance considerations and understand the organisational theory
underlying its operations. The institution needs to develop its internal quality
assurance, with five dimensions contributing to its operation:
o Leadership and management, which includes the role of institutional
vision, values and goals, and leadership;
o Culture of continuous quality improvement, or a quality culture;
o Stakeholder engagement in various aspects of the institution’s operation;
o Internal processes whereby the institution monitors and improves its
performance; and
o Cooperation and collaboration among the units within the organisational
structure. This dimension is a special one, as it links to the broader
dimension of the academic learning organisation (Dill, 1999) and
collaborative learning (Kezar, 2005).
With the contribution of the five dimensions to internal quality assurance, the
institution will be able to achieve accountability (responding to external quality
assurance) as an inevitable result of improvement (sustaining internal quality
assurance and staying competitive in the higher education environment) (Dill,
1999; Harvey & Knight, 1996).
The schematic diagram of this study’s theoretical framework is presented in
Figure 3.1 below. The arrow lines indicate the direction of the influence among
the variables.
53
Figure 2: Diagram of the theoretical framework
In the subsequent sections, the conditions or key success factors for a viable
quality assurance mechanism for HEIs will be elaborated, based on the review of
the relevant literature on the five main dimensions of the above proposed
framework. In other words, the literature that supports the above framework will
be detailed.
3.3 Factors driving quality assurance and quality improvement at the
institutional level
3.3.1 Leadership and management
The concept of leadership
Leadership has been defined in a number of different ways, but there is a common
understanding of it as ‘a process of social influence whereby a leader (or group of
leaders) steers members of a group towards a goal’ (Bryman, 1992, p. 2). Evident
in the literature are distinctions between leadership, often associated with vision,
direction and institutional strategies, and management, often related to policy
execution and competence in functional areas (Middlehurst & Elton, 1992;
54
Davies, Hides & Casey, 2001). However, in this section of the chapter, Newton’s
(2002) and Ramsden’s (1998) pragmatic view - that leaders are also managers and
that leadership is the overarching term for leaders and managers - is adopted.
Dimensions of leadership
As Meade (1997) indicated, in quality assurance in higher education, one of the
major barriers to quality enhancement is the lack of leadership skills. The role of
leadership in the institution’s quality assurance practice can be identified using
Middlehurst’s (1997) framework. The first dimension of leadership is a
conceptual and analytical one. In higher education, this dimension involves a
capacity to think in new ways, to generate new ideas and perspectives, and to
create a vision. According to Wick and Leon (1995), leaders must have a clear
vision, commit to that vision, and consistently communicate that vision to all the
staff. Therefore, all members of the organisation will be enabled to anticipate
what they can contribute to help achieve the organisational goals and objectives.
Leaders of the institution are at their ‘vantage point’ and ‘best positioned to see
and articulate the performance gap’ (Wick & Leon, 1995, p. 301) between the
current achievements and the expected achievements of the institution.
The analytical perspective of leadership relates to the need to collect, analyse and
interpret data. As Middlehurst (1997) pointed out, in the process of quality
assurance, leaders need to make decisions to ‘change, improve, sustain or
withdraw activities’ (p. 193) based on the interpretation of useful data from
reviews, surveys or benchmarking activities.
The second dimension of leadership is a structural and systemic one. The
leadership task at the structural level is to create structures that enable staff to
improve their performance, and the organisation to improve its own performance.
The systemic part of this dimension involves the capacity to attend to all the
constitutive elements that have impact on the performance and operations of the
institution. Fundamental changes cannot happen without this systemic leadership.
In quality assurance practice in higher education, the identification of
55
stakeholders and their interests, the search for partnerships and collaborative
opportunities, and the monitoring of performance at all levels from institutional to
program to individual, are examples of how this structural and systemic
perspective of Middlehurst’s framework can be adopted and implemented.
Similarly, Horsburgh (1999) suggested that higher education leaders should
engage actively with the changes that are affecting the higher education system
and learn about the approaches to quality improvement in other contexts.
The final leadership dimension in Middlehurst’s (1997) framework is a
motivational and behavioural one. The author recognised that appeals to
academics to change their practices on the grounds of economy and efficiency are
unlikely to inspire commitment beyond what can be achieved though compliance
measures. As Harvey (1995) noted, the implementation of quality assurance
practices carries with it implied scepticism about the quality of academics’ work
and a lack of trust. If the foundation is built on partnerships and mutual trust,
rather than on control and policing, it is more likely to sustain the change agenda,
and the chance to achieve quality improvements is potentially greater. The
adoption of this perspective requires the leaders of an institution to engage staff at
the motivational and behavioural levels, to facilitate sustainable change over time,
even after the quality assurance event has passed (Middleshurst, 1997).
The role of leadership in the institution’s quality assurance
Middlehurst and Elton’s (1992) view on the role of leadership in HEIs is still
applicable to the current context. That is, the leadership role needs to remain of
prime importance in all scenarios: to direct and build internal commitment
towards positive collective action in the face of both external pressures and
internal crises; to develop and support the main functions of the institution at
times without pressures; and, at all times, to provide vision, insight and strategies
that can unify organisational forces.
Regarding the specific context of quality assurance in higher education, as noted
by O’Mahony and Garavan (2012), the implementation of quality assurance
56
systems requires continuous leadership. Leaders can help increase staff awareness
of quality improvement through a shared vision and purpose, and create an
environment in which the organisation and its people can excel (Davies et al,.
2001; Dorfman & House, 2004). Leadership, particularly senior leadership,
commitment to, and pro-active pursuit of continuous improvement, appears to be
one of the most critical factors for the success of quality [assurance]
implementation in HEIs (Osseo-Asare, Longbottom & Murphy, 2005;
Papadimitriou, 2011). In support of these arguments, Kouzes and Posner (2007)
proposed five practices of exemplary leadership: model the way, inspire a shared
vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. These
practices appear to match well with the change management process, in this case,
management of quality assurance initiatives (this is discussed further in Section
3.4.2).
As Barnett (1992) argued, institutional leaders play an important role in
understanding the institution’s organisational structure, in identifying the
compatible elements of quality assurance systems for their institution, in making
them explicit, in establishing frameworks for quality assurance and enhancement,
and in raising awareness that quality matters, thereby promoting a culture of
quality improvement across the institution.
HEI leadership plays an important role in encouraging increased ownership of
internal quality processes based on shared institutional visions and goals. When
leadership is executed on the basis of transparency and fairness, and when leaders
enact their quality actions, and communicate and disseminate good practices, the
people involved in the quality system can be greatly motivated and engaged. If
this leadership dimension is well performed and connected with other dimensions,
the quality mechanism will be at its optimal operational condition.
For continuous quality improvement, the role of leaders is vital, specifically
academic leaders at school and faculty levels. These leaders get involved in the
enhancement of curriculum design and renovation, improving students’ learning
and experience, and monitoring course quality and staff performance.
57
3.3.2 Quality culture
A brief overview of the critical writings on quality culture in higher education
shows that this is a complex concept. A variety of notions of culture and
definitions of quality - with Harvey and Green’ (1993) five definitions of quality
as previously reviewed in Chapter 2, as the dominant set- intertwine with each
other in different settings of HEI would produce vast implications.
Concept of quality culture
Although there is no universally accepted meaning of the concept, the culture of
an organisation is associated with shared values, beliefs, norms, assumptions, and
meanings of individuals participating in the organisation (Tierney, 1988; Barnett,
1992). Harvey and Knight (1996) characterised the governing culture in higher
education as collegialism, based on shared decision-making, integrity and
commitment to knowledge.
In their review of the concept of quality culture and its boundaries and limitations,
and possible linkages to the fundamental processes of teaching and learning,
Harvey and Stensaker (2008) referred to culture as the umbrella term for all
possible intangible factors in organisational life. In their historical account, the
concept of quality culture evolved differently in different languages and different
disciplines in Europe, while culture became prominent in the field of management
and was associated with the success of Japanese business after World War 2.
Cultural factors and how they positively affect organisations and organisational
behaviour/performance relate to the Japanese “kaizen” or continuous
improvement. In business, industry and higher education, quality and culture are
not independent entities; rather, quality stems from a broader cultural perspective.
Quality culture is the enabling environment in which the HEI implements its
quality assurance practices. However, as one component of the quality assurance
mechanism, quality culture itself also needs appropriate conditions for its
development and sustainability.
58
Conditions for sustainable quality culture
The European Universities Association (2006) identified that quality culture
could be developed based on two key elements. The first element is a set of
shared values, expectations, beliefs and commitment towards quality. The second
element is structural or managerial, with transparent internal processes that
enhance quality and coordinate efforts.
In a similar vein, Harvey and Stensaker (2008) claimed that although it is
impossible to define quality culture as every HEI is unique - culture is something
that an organisation has and also what an organisation is - quality culture could be
developed by structural and managerial endeavours stimulating shared values and
beliefs. Gordon (2002) emphasised that an effective quality culture involves the
articulation of ‘trans-institutional perspectives, values, procedures and approaches
to practice’ (p. 104).
Another condition that nurtures quality culture is commitment, as highlighted by
such authors as Yorke (2000) and Gordon (2002). Yorke (2000) stated that a
quality culture requires a widespread commitment to quality and quality
improvement. This could be achieved with the commitment of leadership and
management, through a sustained engagement with quality thinking and quality
enactments. Gordon (2002) put that commitment at the highest level (leaders),
allowing for quality practices to have a centrality in the institution’s agenda,
whereas commitment at the level of program and service delivery has an
important impact on quality improvement.
The next condition for sustaining quality culture is individual awareness of the
need to develop an internal quality culture in the institution (Harvey & Stensaker,
2008). This awareness can be increased through improved institutional
communication (Yorke, 2000). The final condition is teamwork, which is an
important feature of all quality management efforts (Boaden & Dale, 1992).
59
Types of quality culture
Harvey and Stensaker (2008) used a cultural theory framework, inspired by
Douglas (1982), Thompson et al. (1990) and Hood (2000), to categorise quality
culture into the following four ideal-types: responsive, reactive, regenerative and
reproductive.
First, a responsive quality culture is led by external demands, such as
governmental imperatives or an agency requirement for compliance. The
responsive mode takes these demands as opportunities to review the institution’s
practices and explore how to make the policies and compliance requirements
beneficial to internal improvement. The responsive mode will have an
improvement quality agenda while addressing accountability issues.
Second, a reactive quality culture reacts to external demands, rather than engages
with them. The reactive mode tends to be driven by compliance and
accountability and works better when there is a reward. The quality culture is
likely to be externally managed and imposed, with little or no sense of ownership.
This type of quality culture appears to be less engaging than the first type.
Third, a regenerative quality culture is focused on internal improvement while
being fully aware of external requirements. This dynamic mode has a coordinated
plan for improvement and continuously reconceptualises its practices. The
regenerative mode will presume that its continuous improvement agenda
represents a form of accountability. It embraces the learning-organisation
approach, stimulating collaborative learning opportunities, reflective learning and
benchmarking possibilities.
Fourth, a reproductive quality culture reproduces the existing situation, aimed at
minimising the impact of external factors. The reproductive mode is focused on
what the institution and its units do best or what it is rewarded for. Established
norms are preferred, rather than reconceptualised core values or future goals. This
quality culture lacks transparency and accommodates taken-for-granted practices.
A sense of “a job well done” is maintained in this culture.
60
As Harvey and Stensaker (2008) argued, these four types of quality culture can be
found in any HEI setting and serve as a starting point for specific implications for
each institution’s quality assurance mechanism, with regard to the interaction
between structure and culture.
In conclusion, quality culture is one of the necessary conditions for preparing
HEIs to handle external demands and improve internal quality and governance. It
could be a tool for reflecting on current practices, identifying possible challenges,
and conceptualising future goals (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008). It is a demanding
task to achieve an effective quality culture as it requires trans-institutional
commitment and involvement (Gordon, 2002).
3.3.3 Stakeholder engagement
One of the significant trends affecting higher education in many countries is the
increased attention to the changing needs of society and the expectations of
employers (Conway et al., 1994; Birnbaum, 2000; Vidovich, 2002). This
increased awareness is reflected in the enhanced involvement of stakeholders in
the decision-making and quality assurance processes in HEIs in many countries.
In the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance, as highlighted
by Westerheijden et al. (2013), the role of stakeholders is emphasised and clearly
stated. Standard 1.1 states that the strategy, policy and procedures for quality
assurance should include a role for students and other stakeholders. Standard 1.2
states that periodic review of programs and awards should involve external panel
members; and the feedback from employers, labour market representatives and
other relevant organisations, as well as students, should be analysed and duly
considered. The involvement of stakeholders is not just one assessment criterion
in the formal quality assurance processes, such as accreditation, that take place
every five or more years. Rather, stakeholders should be involved in the day-to-
day continuous internal quality assurance practices of HEIs. So who are the
stakeholders?
61
Concept of stakeholder
Recent quality assurance literature has included a thorough study on the roles of
stakeholders in universities in seven European countries. The authors,
Westerheijden and his team (2013), borrowed from the management literature the
concept of stakeholders as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected
by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives’ (Freeman 1984, cited in
Westerheijden et al., 2013, p. 73). They also narrowed the scope of stakeholders
in higher education to a specific category, as those that have an ability to
influence the university’s direction, strategic plan, process or outcomes. These
stakeholders can also influence the university’s quality mechanism and internal
quality assurance processes.
The stakeholders identified in Westerheijden et al.’s study include funding bodies
and the community at large, managers and scientific communities, academic and
non-academic professionals, employers, social partners, business partners, and
students.
According to another classification by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2003), there
are four major groups of stakeholders: providers (funding bodies and
community); users of products or courseware (current and prospective students);
users of outputs - graduates (employers); and the employees of the sector
(academic staff and administrators). These authors relate the interpretations of
quality developed by Harvey and Green (1993) to their own classification.
Detailed discussion will follow in the next section.
Shanahan and Gerber (2004), in their study on quality in university student
administration in Australian higher education, include other key stakeholders.
These are parents and executive officers.
Although there are differences in the categories of stakeholders identified, there is
agreement that stakeholders are those who have direct or indirect influence on the
development of an HEI. Which key stakeholders will be invited to join the quality
62
debate depends on the types of education quality processes in each specific higher
education context.
Why should stakeholders be engaged in the quality mission?
Regarding the role of stakeholders in higher education management, Srikanthan
and Dalrymple (2007) stated that any model of management in any organisation
could only succeed if it represents the shared values of the stakeholders.
One of the reasons for the increased popularity of stakeholders in the quality
research is that different key stakeholders bring different perspectives of quality
and quality systems to HEIs (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003). As such, the first
group (providers) view quality as value for money (Harvey & Green, 1993);
quality is represented in the effective utilisation of funding leading to satisfactory
delivery of services and products. The second group (users of products) consider
quality as excellence (Harvey & Green, 1993); the products should be of
comparatively high standards, as revealed by quality audit reports, promising
advantage in career prospects and guiding student choice. For the third group
(users of outputs), quality is fitness for purpose (Harvey & Green, 1993);
graduates are equipped with the required competencies to handle prospective
jobs. The fourth group (employees of the sector) interprets quality as perfection or
consistency (Harvey & Green, 1993), as they require a high level of job
satisfaction, including remuneration, recognition and the assurance of standards,
norms and core ethos.
In line with Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2003), Westerheijden and his team (2013)
argued that stakeholders from different positions in the higher education system
interpret quality in different ways. A long time before that, a team of recognised
scholars in the quality assurance literature, including Westerheijden himself,
already expressed their awareness of a possible matrix of different categories of
stakeholders and their different purposes and quality dimensions (Brennan et al.,
1992). Stakeholders such as students, academic and administrative staff,
managers, scientific communities, government/funding bodies, and employers
63
could bring different perspectives, expectations and requirements to quality work
in the HEIs.
Westerheijden et al. (2013) also claimed that by bringing different expectations,
perspectives and requirements to bear on quality, these stakeholders may enrich
the debate on quality in the institution. If they focus on a single dimension (e.g.
employers merely expect immediately usable skills from the graduates), then their
contribution to the HEI quality debate would be less enriching. However, one
condition for stakeholders to share their perspectives and join in the quality
debate is the guaranteed access to HEIs’ issues.
Within an HEI, its two prominent stakeholders - managers and academics - need
to interact with one another in a dialogue about the nature of knowledge and to be
assertive about their needs in the joint development of mutually beneficial
institutional processes (Starkey & Madan, 2001).
As each stakeholder holds a specific view on quality and the assurance of quality
in higher education, the involvement of all key stakeholders into the
implementation of quality assurance processes is likely to ensure a multi-faceted
framework.
In what areas of higher education could stakeholders be involved?
Stakeholders have been involved in many stages of the education process and
several activities that contribute to the assurance of higher education quality. For
instance, Cornway et al. (1994) emphasised that stakeholders play an important
role in the strategic planning processes of an institution and the terms that are
consistent with these people would determine the survival of the institution. In
order to prepare for the increasingly competitive environment, an institution
should have successful strategies to deliver the right products and services. These
strategies could be developed based on an understanding of the needs and wants
of customers and the market (Conway et al., 1994). Thus, the involvement of
stakeholders who have such knowledge and understanding is crucial.
64
In their case study of seven countries, Westerheijden and his team (2013) reported
on a number of activities in which stakeholders are involved. First, the authors
noted that key stakeholders are involved in decision-making bodies in HEIs,
bringing in their socially-oriented views. Second, the authors commented on the
pervasive professional influence of stakeholders on curriculum review and quality
assurance. Good practices could be found in almost all case-study countries. For
example, stakeholders from the business world have some influence on course
content and thesis foci through their involvement in teaching activities, or,
professionals from different expertise areas teach part-time and bring immediate
relevance to the classroom learning. The influence of external stakeholders is
reflected through such traditional channels as guest lectures, excursions and field
trips; or through more up-to-date channels such as placements, joint projects or
theses in specific fields. The informal contacts between external stakeholders and
academic staff provide the latter group with ideas that they can reflect on and use
to make necessary decisions and changes in terms of course content or teaching
methods.
Regarding education quality work, Westerheijden et al. (2013) also observed that
a good number of external professionals are involved in the evaluation of
pedagogical processes and internal quality assurance processes at the institutional
level. Also, the quality assurance agencies require that external stakeholders are
consulted for curriculum review processes. This paves the avenue for HEIs’
movement towards market influence.
As key stakeholders of the university, the voices of students as agents for change
and improvement in learning and teaching should be recognised. Their
perspectives should be counted in the assessment of quality at the institution
(Lagrosen et al., 2004; Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013).
What are the barriers to effective engagement of stakeholders?
As shown in several studies (Brennan et al., 1992; Mitchel et al., 1997;
Westerheijden et al., 2013), external stakeholders who lack knowledge relevant to
65
the specificities of an HEI would have no influence on the practices and decision-
making process. In many cases, the HEI’s expectations of change are too great,
while the consultations with stakeholders can be tokenistic, possibly leading to
superficial compliance (Westerheijden et al., 2013). The barrier in this case would
be the academic culture of those institutions, which is inward looking and does
not appreciate outsiders’ viewpoints.
In general, stakeholders have been involved more and more in HEI decision-
making bodies and processes. However, there are differences in individual HEI
practices in terms of which categories of stakeholders should be involved, at
which levels (institution, faculty or program), and in which procedures. The lack
of a common framework for stakeholder involvement is a barrier for HEI
implementation of education quality work in general, and stakeholder
involvement in particular. Another barrier that cannot be overlooked by HEIs, is
the complexity of the dual role of students in higher education, as both the
product and the customer (Conway et al., 1994).
What are the requirements for effective engagement of stakeholders?
Within the scope of their case study, Westerheijden and his team (2013) reported
two noteworthy requirements for the effective engagement of stakeholders. The
first related to the criteria for eligible external stakeholders to get involved in
academic activities in HEIs, that is ‘External members should be persons of
recognizable merit, external to the institutions but with knowledge and experience
relevant for it’ (p. 75). The second is that the proportions of stakeholders should
be specified. For instance, in the Netherlands, it is specified that students and
external stakeholders form the majority in program committees; or, in Portugal,
the general council of public HEIs must include external stakeholder membership
of at least 30%. Other positive changes in these case-study countries include
students becoming a prominent group of stakeholders, and increased engagement
of non-academic professionals.
66
One important lesson could be drawn from Westerheijden et al.’s (2013) study.
That is, HEIs should engage those stakeholders for whom the enhanced quality of
the institution is vital, such as fund providers, staff and students. At the same
time, opinions from other stakeholders whose knowledge and experience are
relevant to the HEI’s specificities should be consulted. This will not only help
with the delivery of the right products and services for the market, but, more
importantly, it will also help higher education to achieve the mission of
influencing the market.
3.3.4 Cooperation and collaboration
The link between the leadership dimension and this cooperation and collaboration
dimension is reflected in the collaborative development and implementation of
the institutional strategic plan. This should clearly define goals in the core areas
of research, teaching and learning. As suggested by Shah and Jarzabkowski
(2013), in the self-regulating university environment, the institutional strategic
plan should be supported by a research plan and a teaching and learning plan that
provide guidelines for operationalisation. This should entail plans from academic
faculties/schools and administrative units to put the strategic plan into operation
on a day-to-day basis. Careful strategic planning has become crucial to
strengthening universities’ capacity to innovate their research, teaching and
learning, to align strategy with amendments to government policies and trends in
the external environment, and to respond to unexpected needs.
Cooperation among units
An institution’s performance depends, to a considerable extent, on its internal
structure and functioning. That is to say, if the internal structure does not work
well, the institution will face challenges in achieving its targeted goals and
outcomes. With the responsibility for implementing the goals and strategic plans
of the institution, organisational unit performance has an impact on the whole
institution’s performance. This, according to Yorke (2000), explains the trend of
organisational units being increasingly required to demonstrate how their
activities support institutional plans and policies. Nevertheless, due to the varied
67
nature of HEIs in terms of how loosely coupled their internal units are, or how
autonomous these units are operating, the relationship between whole institutional
functioning and organisational unit effectiveness is not explicit (Yorke 2000).
As Sporn (2007) pointed out in her analysis of the new direction of higher
education management, if core contributions of all academic and administrative
units in a university are clearly defined, in the form of contracts between the
leadership and basic units, the institutional performance will be more efficient and
effective. For academic units, the focus will be on teaching and research. For
administrative units, the focus will be on functional areas such as information
technology (IT), libraries, or marketing. Such procedures as management by
objectives through contracts, goal setting and strategic planning as a basis for
resource allocation and output control, are being applied in higher education.
Within the context above, as described by Sporn (2007), the cooperation between
basic university units is very important, as an individual unit is not likely to
implement its operations and achieve set goals if it is not connected to, or in
collaboration with, other units. Between academic units, collaboration includes
shared teaching and learning initiatives and joint research projects. Between
academic and administrative units, cooperation includes support for the
implementation of policy and procedures. Rhoades (1998) introduced the term
‘professional managers’ when describing the trend of professionalisation of
higher education. Similarly, Sporn (2007) observed the development of
professional support in many institutions. Examples include teaching centres
designed to assist academic faculties to improve their course development and
teaching methodologies, or multi-media officers who advise faculty staff about
applying technology transfer to their teaching or translating their research into
marketable products. These professional support activities represent and promote
the cooperation and collaboration between university units.
As globalisation brings increased competitiveness to the higher education sector,
universities are moving towards more market-oriented and entrepreneurial
models. With governance being in the hands of the top leadership and
68
administration being professionally managed, the power balance between
academic faculties and administration can only be achieved when both groups are
accountable, based on mutually agreed indicators and measures (Sporn, 2007;
Amey et al., 2007). This condition is an important dimension of any quality
assurance mechanism in higher education institutions.
Enablers for and barriers to cooperation among organisational units
Rather than being a group of ‘loosely coupled’ units (Weick, 1976), or ‘an
assembly of multiple units’ (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2004), a university can
choose to become a ‘network organization’ (Bowden & Marton, 1998). If it
chooses the latter, creating a better networked and decentralised governance
structure rather than a hierarchical organisation, many links between units are
created. These connections require active communication and collaboration
among people who undertake the same task (Bowden & Marton, 1998).
Other elements that promote cooperation among units in a university include
shared values and shared awareness of the common goals, and trust among
members. These elements contribute to an enabling environment, allowing people
to work together in teams, rather than individually. When there is cooperation
among the units in a university, ‘collective consciousness’ can be created
(Bowden & Marton, 1998; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2004). - it is the status quo
when different people are conscious of the same phenomenon and from a variety
of perspectives.
According to Kezar (2005), some of the barriers to cooperation in institutions
include hierarchies and boundaries between administrative units. Another
hindrance, as pointed out by Boyle and Bowden (1997), is the lack of a strong
supporting foundation, comprising enabling policies, structures, resources and
support groups. When institutional policies are not transparent and well translated
into user-friendly templates and procedures, and when human, time and financial
resources are limited, cooperation among organisational units is likely to be
impeded.
69
When quality assurance in HEIs is written into official documents such as
strategic plans, but the cooperation among institutional units (especially between
academic faculties and administrative units) is not evident, the achievement of
institutional goals and outcomes, including quality enhancement or assurance,
might be a challenge.
Collaborative learning
Cooperation among organisational units contributes to the improved performance
of the whole institution. Likewise, academic collaboration across the university
network enhances the quality of teaching, learning and research. Srikanthan and
Dalrymple (2002) claimed that collaboration is the key requirement for
improvement of educational delivery.
Another study by Kezar (2005), among a very limited number of studies on
collaboration at universities, highlights that if institutions redesign their
organisational contexts to accommodate collaboration, they might be more
responsive to external pressures. The major elements of Kezar’s model of a
collaborative university are:
Mission statements include the concept of collaboration, which is integrated
into all the institution’s work. It is reinforced through communication, and
in public speeches by leaders and managers referring to the mission and
collaborative work.
Networks provide a vehicle for ideas to flow and to gain momentum and
energy to sustain the collaboration. Networks overcome resistance to new
structures or processes on campus and inspire more people to join in the
collaborative work. Networks have to be cultivated before attempts are
made to conduct collaborative work. Typical activities of network building
include orientation for a new faculty, a leadership series for faculty and
staff, social events and academic symposia.
70
Integrating structures help redesign the organisational context for sustained
collaboration, when the idea (mission) and the people (network) are in
place. The exemplary structure requires a central unit in charge of fostering
collaboration, cross-campus high profile institutes and centres, and new
accounting, computer and budgetary systems.
Rewards and incentives help promote collaboration, they help a new faculty
to adopt an alternative approach to faculty work (i.e. collaborative work).
Sense of priority from the people in senior positions. Collaboration is a
signalled priority when it is discussed by senior administrators, connected to
the strategic objectives of the institution, written in strategic plans,
accreditation reports and board correspondence, and is modelled by senior
executives.
External groups such as sponsors, accrediting agencies, national
coordinating boards, and stakeholders from business and industries create
pressures for collaboration. The pressure from accreditors is the major
source of support for a faculty that believes in collaboration; and motivates
administrators, as poor accreditation affects the institution’s reputation. The
pressure from business and industry, as collaboration is needed in the
workplace, has a powerful influence on certain disciplines, leading to
transformed curricula.
Learning and conversations among colleagues, and informal information
sharing about the benefits of collaboration, gradually confirm the message
that collaboration enhances faculty work. A mechanism is needed to allow
people to interact, such as a staff dining area or staff retreats.
These features, identified by Kezar in 2005, are still applicable to many HEIs,
especially in developing countries. Sustained collaboration in the institution not
only strengthens teaching, learning and research efforts, but will also pay off as
better public recognition. Kezar’s model aligns with Dill’s (1999) concept of the
university as a learning organisation, discussed in Chapter 2.
71
3.3.5 Internal processes
In the operationalisation of the institutional strategic plan, the achievement of
strategic goals requires a strong and reliable operational system. This system is
dedicated to managing risk and assuring and improving quality across all areas of
the university (Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013). It supports leadership and
management through a robust system of internal processes, in the form of policies
and procedures, and indicators and measures that help with regular performance
evaluation in key areas. These processes, according to Shah and Jarzabkowski
(2013), reflect higher education threshold standards and risk indicators. When
these processes are in place, the institution can set and achieve its own goals,
while being compliant with those higher education threshold standards.
Whether the institution is focused on external quality assurance compliance or
internal quality improvement, it needs to develop professional administration and
education support structures, to create new policies and procedures, and systems
for managing data and information on educational performance and quality
(Stensaker 2003; Westerheijden, Hulpiau & Waetens, 2007). While compliance-
led quality assurance aims at getting policies and procedures right, improvement-
led quality assurance aims at ensuring these are effective and implemented with
consistency.
Harvey (2002a) argued that when the institution focuses on continuous
improvement and adopts process-driven quality assurance, the internal processes
will generate their own performance indicators. Such indicators will be owned by
the institution and will measure real improvements. However, when processes
become more elaborate, place more demands on staff and become routinised, they
lose their improvement potential (Harvey, 2002b). This might be due to the fact
that administrative loads (e.g. the time and effort needed for form filling and
evidence recording for accountability) may impinge on the time required for
academic tasks or collaboration to improve teaching, learning and research
quality.
72
Discussion of internal processes or policies and procedures (P&P) has gained
popularity in the business management literature, with researchers arguing about
the importance of these matters in the operationalisation of HEIs. However, there
is very limited literature on such aspects as how institutions develop their internal
processes; what enables or hinders the effectiveness of the internal processes;
whether or not there are commonly applied internal processes; and whether or not
HEIs have included internal processes in their quality assurance mechanisms.
3.3.6 Summary of the quality assurance mechanism dimensions
The above sections reviewed the key contributors to the effective
operationalisation of HEIs. These factors (leadership and management, quality
culture, stakeholder engagement, cooperation and collaboration, and internal
processes) can be viewed as the key dimensions of the quality assurance
mechanism required for any HEI. As such, educational quality can be assured and
enhanced when:
Leaders and managers make sure that quality assurance is written into
official documents, such as the institutional mission and strategic plan;
signal quality assurance as a priority in the institution’s development
agenda; and sustain their engagement in, and commitment to, quality
improvement by showcasing their quality thinking and quality enactments.
A culture of continuous quality improvement is created and nurtured in
the institution, by the commitment of leaders; the increased awareness of
all staff members of the need to practice quality assurance; and the
enabling support structures and processes.
Key stakeholders, especially those for whom the educational quality of the
institution really matters (funding agencies, staff and students), and those
who have relevant expertise and experience, are actively engaged in the
decision-making process, including such educational and pedagogical
aspects as curriculum renovation, new degree program development,
partnerships and internships.
73
The HEI promotes cooperation and collaboration and advocates
transformative learning; and there is favourable cooperation and
collaboration among organisational units, in the operationalisation of
institutional functions and in the pursuit and improvement of teaching,
learning and research endeavours.
There are enabling internal processes in place, accompanied by
performance indicators for measuring real improvements.
The interaction between and among these dimensions varies according to the
specific context of an institution. However, in total, they constitute a
comprehensive mechanism for quality assurance in HEIs.
IThe next section provides an analysis of the organisational change management
literature, which contains a number of issues relevant to the sustaining of quality
assurance initiatives. This was conducted in order to address the last research
question of the study.
3.4 Managing quality assurance as organisational change
As a university is a type of organisation (Sporn, 2007; Manning, 2013) and the
implementation of quality assurance initiatives represents an important change to
be addressed by all HEIs sooner or later, the study of quality assurance in higher
education should not be isolated from the study of organisational management in
general, and the study of change management in particular.
So far, the theories reviewed have focused on quality assurance in higher
education and few studies have attempted to view quality assurance
implementation through the lens of organisational management and change
management theories. In this section, I will present a brief review of the literature
on organisational management and change management, which is closely related
and applicable to the management of quality assurance initiatives.
74
3.4.1 Three levels of espousal, enactment and experience
A brief review of the literature on organisational management and related issues
indicated that the three levels of espousal, enactment and experience have been
referred to or applied as a theoretical lens for various studies on organisational
policies, curriculum assessment, students’ learning assessment, and quality
assurance (see, for example, Genus, 1998; Truss, 2001; Kezar, 2000, 2001b; Bath
et al., 2004; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Mirvis, 1996; Bouwen, 2001; Barrie,
2005; Grieves, 2010; Rasori, 2012; Newton, 2006).
The application of these three levels originated from the theory of action,
developed by Argyris and Schon (1978) and supported by Weick (1979).
Accordingly, examining an organisation’s theory of action involves the analysis
of the gap between the ‘espoused theory’ and the ‘theory in use’ or the enacted
theory. As these authors asserted, people or organisations tend to ‘define
situations so as to have control over their environment, to maximise their
likelihood of winning … and to make their actions all seem rational and level-
headed’ (Argyris & Schon, 1974, cited in Mirvis, 1996, p. 20). However, in
reality, many times the espoused values that an organisation desires might not be
reflected in the observed behaviour (Schein, 2010), or there is a difference
between the planned outcomes of the espoused policies and those that emerge
through implementation (Newton, 2006). Change agents in different educational
aspects may share the purpose of achieving alignment between what is espoused,
what is enacted, and what people experience and learn or change (Barrie, 2005).
Organisational changes often relate to the newly espoused policies and how these
policies are enacted and experienced. Schneider and Barbera (2014) stated that
espoused policies are explicit and stable, translated into formal procedures
applicable across situations, and often communicated in written documents,
training courses or formal meetings; while enacted practices, or enforced policies,
are dynamic and situation-driven, and closely relate to people’s experiences.
75
Commenting on the conditions necessary for successful change implementation,
Campbell, Coldicott and Kinsella (1994) claimed:
In our view, complex change is surely more implemented when espousal
of new ideas is followed by the enactment of new behaviours, within the
leadership, in the relationship between the leadership and the rest of staff,
and in the cultural context in which they all operate, so that the whole
organization begins to experience itself as behaving differently and making
new meaning from their interactions with each other and the external
environment. (p. 55)
As Van de Ven and Poole (2005) argued, organisational change has been a
prevailing topic in organisational studies. However, it should be noted again that
there is limited empirical research into this espousal-enactment-experience frame
specific to the examination of quality assurance as organisational change.
3.4.2 Managing and sustaining change
As the focus of the current research is investigating how quality assurance has
been adopted and implemented in a specific context, with regards to its external
and internal influencing factors, a number of relevant issues were distilled from
the extant literature on organisational change management. These are presented
below.
3.4.2.1 Change management models
A good variety of models for change management have been developed, and they
commonly consist of several specific steps. Crosby (1984) proposed the basic
formula of “Determination-Education-Implementation” for an organisation to
change its profile out of problem. Two decades later, the literature had evolved,
creating more complex models. Anderson and Anderson (2001), in their research
on organisational development, created a change process model consisting of nine
steps under three broader phases, as shown in the figure below:
76
Figure 3: The change process model as a full stream process
Source: Anderson & Anderson, 2001, p. 172
Kotter and Cohen (2002) studied over 100 organisations that had successfully
implemented large-scale change. They synthesised important elements of these
success stories into eight stages:
1. Increase urgency: creating a sense of urgency for people to start the
change
2. Build the guiding team: pulling together a team with the needed skills,
credibility, connection and power to drive the change effort
3. Get the vision right: creating a compelling vision and strategies
4. Communicate for buy-in: communicating the vision and direction of
change
5. Empower action: removing barriers, or empowering people to move ahead
6. Create short-term wins: producing visible symbols of success through
short-term victories, and building momentum
7. Don’t let up: sticking with the process and refusing to quit when things get
tough
8. Make change stick: shaping a new culture to support the emerging
innovative way
77
These latter two well-recognised change process models share the essence of
other models (see, for example McLennan, 1989; Nadler, 1998; Light, 2005;
Leppitt, 2006) and the proposed steps can either be followed in sequence or
adapted to specific settings. In the real world, the stages might overlap and be
multi-dimensional, rather than linear (Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2009). As change
itself is a dynamic process, change agents may cycle back to earlier stages when
needed (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
3.4.2.2 Barriers to change
Organisational change has proved to be instrumental, to varying extents, to the
development of an organisation. However, as Graetz et al. (2011) claimed,
‘almost all change management attempts are met with some type of barrier or
resistance’ (p. 229). These authors presented their thorough analysis of several
aspects of resistance to change: causes, forms, and how to deal with such
undesirable practices. Graetz and her colleagues raised worthwhile concerns. That
said, change agents should hold a balanced perspective that acceptance or
commitment to change and rejection of, or resistance to change are ‘polar
extremes of the single issue best described as responses to change’ (p. 229), and
that resistance to change can serve positive purposes as well.
In the change management process, as the available literature indicates, change
agents need to address other major issues, such as conflicts between ‘winners and
losers - those who benefit from the new direction and who do not’ (Bolman &
Deal, 2008, p. 396), the need to revise and realign the existing structural patterns
to support change (Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2009; Bolman & Deal, 2008), or the
impact of situational factors and context (Newton, 1999).
Change management is a complex and multi-dimensional undertaking (Graetz et
al. 2011). Successful change management, therefore, requires a comprehensive
understanding of an organisation’s practices and underlying organisational
theories, as well as the supporting structures and driving values and forces that
impact on these practices.
78
3.4.2.3 Supporting and sustaining change
As implementing quality assurance initiatives is a new phenomenon in Vietnam
(discussed further in Chapter 5), how to support and sustain this important change
is a critical concern for all change agents involved.
One common feature of the reviewed change management process models is that
change implementation is not a one-off process, but a continuous process. Making
change “stick” is equally important (Senge et al., 1999; Palmer, Dunford & Akin,
2009). To facilitate sustainable change, a new culture must be created, embedding
change in routine organisational practices. In this respect, researchers highlight
the importance of the critical role of change leadership, communication and
training, realignment of roles and systems, resolution of conflicts and resistance,
and short-term achievement celebrations (Graetz et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2009;
Bolman & Deal, 2008; Anderson & Anderson, 2001).
The above review of organisational change management issues adds valuable
perspectives to strengthen the theoretical basis for the current research. Further
discussion based on these theories and models is presented in Chapters 6, 7, and
8.
79
Conclusion
In this chapter, the theoretical framework of the study has been presented. It was
conceptualised based on the existing quality assurance models and frameworks,
with reference to organisational theories in higher education and the
organisational theories reframed for change management. The factors that drive
external quality assurance and internal quality improvement at the institutional
level - the dimensions of this theoretical framework - have been further analysed,
providing a needed theoretical foundation for the study. The theoretical
framework guided data collection and analysis. Data was interpreted based on the
outlined elements, taking into account the impact of different institutional and
contextual or cultural factors.
Additionally, as the implementation of quality assurance proves to be an
important institutional change, a number of relevant issues from the literature on
organisational change management have been also briefly reviewed in order to
shed light on the interpretation of the findings.
The next chapter presents the structural design of the study - the adopted research
paradigm, methodology and methods.
80
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH PARADIGM,
METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
Introduction
This chapter presents the methodological considerations for the study. The
research paradigm and the methodology are presented, as well as how they work
together to form the research study. This is followed by a discussion of the
methods that match the methodology and the expected research outcomes, in
terms of data types, sources and sampling; data collection tools and procedures;
and data analysis modes. Discussions relating to issues of validity and reliability
are intertwined throughout the sections on methodology and methods. A section
on ethical considerations is also provided in this chapter.
4.1 Research paradigm and methodology
4.1.1 Research paradigm
As Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) highlighted, the choice of paradigm is the first
step in the research process and the basis for subsequent choices of methodology,
methods and research design (see also Lincoln & Guba, 2005; Lather, 2006). This
study is designed under the overarching research paradigm of interpretivism.
The interpretivism paradigm is suitable for social science research as it facilitates
the investigation and understanding of ‘the world of human experience’ (Cohen,
Manion & Morrison, 1994, p. 36). From the epistemological perspective, this
paradigm represents the quest for subjective knowledge when the ‘knower and
respondent co-create understandings’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 13), or the
subjective meanings that individuals develop based on their experiences
(Creswell 2007). As these meanings are varied and multiple, requiring the
researcher to look for the complexity of views, the researcher tends to rely ‘as
much as possible on the [research] participants’ views of the situation’ being
studied (Creswell, 2007, p. 20). Researchers also recognise that their own
81
background and experiences shape their interpretation of what others perceive
(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006; Creswell, 2007). In this regard, according to Raddon
(2010), the researcher acts as a detective. Another epistemological assumption is
that researchers need to get close to the research participants by conducting
research in the “field” where participants live and work, thus minimising the
distance and ‘objective separateness’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1988, p. 94) between
themselves and the research participants.
The ontological perspective of interpretivism is that ‘reality is socially
constructed’ (Mertens, 2005, p. 12) and that people are human beings (i.e., the
truth is out there but complex) (Raddon 2010). As discussed in more detail by
Creswell (2007), the individuals being studied embrace multiple realities, so when
studying individuals, the researchers actually intend to report on these different
realities. Multiple quotes based on the words of different individuals are evidence
of multiple realities and reflect different perspectives from individuals. In this
regard, interpretivism assumes a relativist ontology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
Interpretivists do not generally start with a theory. Instead, they generate or
inductively develop a theory or pattern of meaning throughout the research
process. The interpretivist researcher is likely to employ qualitative data
collection methods and analysis or a mixed methods design (Cohen et al., 1994;
Creswell, 2003, 2007; Silverman, 2004; Raddon, 2010; Yin, 2011).
My choice of the interpretivism paradigm was made while taking into account
both the advantages and disadvantages of this paradigm. Regarding advantages,
as Raddon (2010) argued, this paradigm facilitates the understanding of how and
why things happen, the interpretation of social processes, as well as the
motivations and values of social actors, structures and patterns. It allows for
complexity and contextual factors. The current research was designed to
investigate how Vietnamese public universities are implementing quality
assurance, whether the universities under study adopt the same or different quality
82
assurance mechanisms, and why there are differences in their actual
implementation. Also, the roles of the contextual factors affecting quality
assurance practices were analysed, and patterns were conceptualised into a
framework for reference. Thus, the current research fits nicely with this paradigm.
Since the research is conducted under the overarching paradigm of interpretivism,
the researcher is aware of the limitations of this paradigm. As pointed out by
Raddon (2010), data collection can be time consuming and data analysis can be
challenging and complex. There is a risk that clear patterns may not emerge.
There are other limitations, such as: limited perspectives may be provided, or
language may be misconstrued. The researcher, therefore, developed a framework
for investigation that set boundaries and categories of information/data to be
collected and analysed. This framework was presented in the preceding chapter.
The sections that follow explain in more detail how the drawbacks of
interpretivism were addressed.
4.1.2 Methodology: case study
4.1.2.1 Research questions revisited
The review of quality assurance literature and the study of the Vietnamese public
university context (discussed in Chapter 5) helped the researcher to identify the
research gap. This gap relates to how Vietnamese public universities are
implementing their quality assurance in terms of creating harmony between their
internal quality assurance and external quality assurance, and how they
manage/sustain quality assurance initiatives. To address this research gap, the
research questions were constructed and revised several times, from the stage of
candidature proposal to data collection in the field. As Creswell (2007) argued,
the research questions may change in the middle of the study to reflect better the
types of questions needed to understand the research problem.
83
The final research questions are:
1) How are the case study universities conducting their quality assurance?
1.1 What are the key components of their quality assurance
frameworks?
1.2 What are the possible explanations for the discrepancies among
the universities’ quality assurance practices?
2) What are the possible factors that impact on the quality assurance
implementation at the case universities?
2.1 What are the possible factors that facilitate quality assurance
implementation at the case universities?
2.2 What are the possible factors that hinder quality assurance
implementation at the case universities?
3) What are the essential conditions for a sustainable quality assurance
mechanism, from the perspectives of the interviewed leaders?
4.1.2.2 Case study selection
The case study methodology is purposefully selected based on the following
reasons. First, as claimed by Yin (2009) in his well recognised case study
research book series, case studies are the preferred method when a researcher can
match the following three conditions: 1) “how” and “why” questions are being
posed; 2) the researcher has little or no control over actual events; and 3) the
focus of the study is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context. In
addition, the case study method has been used in education research, allowing the
researcher to ‘retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life
events’, including small group behaviour, organisational and managerial
processes, and institutional performance (Yin, 2009, p. 4). The current research
satisfied these three conditions and, therefore, the case study method was
considered the appropriate choice.
84
Second, the research aimed at investigating the current situation of quality
assurance in higher education in Vietnam through an exemplary case - one of the
flagship national university - where quality assurance has been embedded in
strategic planning and evidence can be traced. The anticipated outcomes included
a viable quality assurance model, the components of which were demonstrated in
the quality assurance implementation at the universities under study; and the
possible implications drawn from the case for other public universities in
Vietnam, as well as in other developing countries. In developing countries,
quality assurance in higher education is still in the initial stage, and the
implementation of a quality assurance mechanism remains under the influence of
similar contextual factors.
Third, this methodology is appropriate for the scope and budget of my research
project. As the field work of the research was conducted in Vietnam, under strict
time and budget constraints, while the research project is based in Australia, the
choice of case study enabled the researcher to manage a small-scale project. It
also allowed for the researcher to conceptualise valuable findings from one case,
to a certain level of generalisation applicable to other public universities with
similar operational contexts (see, for example, Bassey, 1999; Creswell, 2009,
2012).
4.1.2.3 Case study design: some theoretical considerations
The selected case design uses ‘multiple-case’ as Yin (2009) terms it, or an
‘interpretative’ case as classified by Merriam (2009), or ‘collective case studies’
as identified by Stake (1994). Specifically, Yin’s (2009) multiple-case design is
used when the study contains more than a single case. Merriam’s (2009)
interpretative case inductively develops conceptual categories in order to examine
initial assumptions. Stake’s (1994) collective case studies refer to groups of
individual studies undertaken to achieve a fuller picture.
When adopting the multiple-case design, the researcher is aware of the replication
logic. Yin (2009) claims that the replication logic underlying the use of multiple-
85
case studies is similar to that used in multiple experiments. That is, ‘upon
uncovering a significant finding from a single experiment, an ensuing and
pressing priority would be to replicate this finding by conducting a second, third,
and even more experiments’ (Yin, 2009, p. 52). Yin suggests that each case
should be carefully selected so that the results predicted are either similar (literal
replication) or contrasting but for anticipatable reasons (theoretical replication).
That said, the current research design matches the multiple-case design, since it
was designed to investigate how quality assurance is being conducted at
Vietnamese public universities. The predicted results could be similar across the
case universities, for example, in a commonly adopted quality assurance
framework, or they could be different in terms of implementation due to the
varied organisational styles and contextual factors.
Yin (2009) also identified an important step in the replication procedures - the
development of a robust theoretical framework. This framework specifies the
conditions under which a phenomenon is likely to be found (a literal replication)
as well as the conditions when it is not likely to be found (a theoretical
replication). The theoretical framework later becomes the vehicle for generalising
for new cases, as depicted in the diagram below.
86
Figure 4: The case study method
Source: Yin, 2009, p. 73, adopted from COSMOS Corporation
As mentioned earlier in Section 4.2.1, the researcher developed a theoretical
framework for investigation that sets boundaries for the data collection and
analysis. This framework represents the original theoretical propositions, and was
used as a frame of reference during the replication procedure.
The selection of the multiple-case design is based on the argument that this has
distinct advantages over single case designs. According to Herriott and Firestone
(1983), the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more convincing and
the overall study is therefore regarded as being more powerful. Similarly, Yin
(2009) claimed that the analytic conclusions from multiple cases are more
compelling than those coming from a single case.
4.1.2.4 Rationale for the selection of the case
A national institution in Hanoi was selected for this study. The institution is one
of the two national flagship universities of Vietnam, being appointed by the
MoET to be one of the three centres monitoring quality assurance practices and
87
accreditation of public universities in the North of Vietnam (discussed in more
detail in Chapter 5). Therefore, it is assumed that this institution is also a flagship
in quality assurance implementation and has experiences and lessons worth
sharing.
The institution has six member universities, or to use the western term, “affiliated
colleges”, which range from the prestigious, with large campuses, student intake
and academic bodies, to newly established, smaller colleges. The main disciplines
covered are: social sciences and humanities, natural sciences, economics and
business, engineering and technology, languages and international studies, and
education. The quality assurance approaches and practices adopted by these
universities also differ, with some seemingly having more experience with
regional and national accreditation than others. The diversity in these institutions’
approaches to quality assurance and their internal quality assurance practices was
worth studying. In short, it was anticipated that a comparative analysis of the
target universities, in light of the relevant literature, would help draw out valuable
lessons for Vietnamese public universities.
4.1.2.5 Limitations of case study and the issues of reliability and validity
Case studies have certain advantages and strengths that make them attractive to
educators and researchers. Researchers, however, need to address the limitations
of this methodology, and by doing so, to address the issues of reliability and
validity.
Yin (2009) pointed out two common concerns about case study research. The first
is the lack of accuracy when researchers do not follow systematic procedures and
allow biased views to influence the directions of the findings and the conclusions.
This concern was shared by Shaughnessy et al. (2003, cited in Cohen et al., 2007)
who claimed that case studies may be impressionistic and involve self-reporting
by the participants, or the observer may be biased. Similarly, Nisbet and Watt
88
(1984) stated that case studies may be selective, biased, personal and subjective,
because they are not likely to be accessible for cross-checking.
The second concern, according to Yin (2009), is that case studies are
generalisable to theoretical propositions and not to broader communities. In this
regard, a case study does not represent a sample, and when doing case study
research, the goal is to ‘expand and generalise theories’, rather than ‘enumerate
frequencies’ (Yin, 2009, p.13). Nisbet and Watt (1984) also recognised this
weakness, as the results from case studies can be generalisable only to those
readers or researchers who see their application. This weakness, however, can be
balanced by the idea that new interpretations are explicitly possible and that
others may take up the ideas to test or adapt to their own situation (Lincoln &
Guba, 1990).
Stake (2011) identified an ethical issue that can be another concern for both
researchers and the researched in case studies. As the case study researcher shares
an intense interest in personal views and contexts, those participants whose lives
and expressions are depicted in the case risk exposure, embarrassment or, even
worse, loss of their position, employment or self-esteem.
To increase the likelihood of rigor and reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation
or biased influences, the researcher in this study employed various systematic
procedures and disciplined practices for data collection and data analysis. These
procedures and practices will be discussed in more details in the subsequent
sections of this chapter.
Regarding the second common concern over the generalisability of case studies,
the researcher sought to improve this by investing efforts in doing a ‘good case
study’ (Yin, 2009, p. 14), allowing the sharing of significant lessons and
implications for similar cases. The researcher also sought to fulfil major
conceptual responsibilities, as recommended by Stake (2011), including seeking
89
patterns of data to develop the issues, selecting alternative interpretations to
pursue, and developing generalisations about the case.
As for the third concern about ethical issues, the researcher went through a strictly
reviewed ethics process before conducting the research project. The researcher
carefully planned the data collection, data analysis and presentation, so as to
minimise the inherent risk to participants.
4.2 Research methods
Under the overarching interpretivism paradigm, within the multiple-case design,
the research was conducted using qualitative methods for data collection and data
analysis. Qualitative methods included complementary applications of document
analysis and in-depth semi-structured interviews with leaders and middle
managers. These interviews were based on two sets of interview questions for two
levels - ministerial and institutional. The questions were framed based on the set
of research questions. Emphasis was placed on the institutional level.
The researcher followed the data collection procedures recommended by Miles
and Huberman (1984, 1994), and Creswell (2009). The researcher firstly
identified the purposefully selected sites and individuals for the proposed study,
taking into account the four aspects of setting, actors, events and process. Then
the types of data to be collected were indicated.
Throughout the study, multiple-case design was applied in the empirical
investigation of: 1) the system level quality assurance in higher education in
Vietnam; 2) the quality assurance mechanism in place, and internal quality
assurance practices of the case universities, and how these affect their
responsiveness to system level quality assurance, and the implications for
harmonious external-internal quality assurance and how to sustain the quality
assurance initiative.
90
The first empirical study investigated the current system level quality assurance in
higher education in Vietnam. It involved the analysis of qualitative data gained
from document analysis and interviews at the national level. Document analysis
was conducted on the quality assurance framework(s) being implemented, policy
documentation, proclamations, instruction manuals and published reports, rules
and regulations for higher education institutions in Vietnam. This was designed to
provide some background. Interviews with key quality assurance officers from
MoET and the institution’s centre for quality assurance covered such issues as:
the rationale and process for developing/adopting the quality assurance policy and
measures, and recent changes; factors that enhance or hinder the implementation
of quality assurance as a national policy; feedback from universities regarding the
implementation of quality assurance as a national policy; and the proposed
changes to allow the institutions to better respond to external quality assurance
while sustaining internal quality assurance and improve performance.
The second empirical study dealt with the six case universities within the national
institution. Again, qualitative data were gathered and analysed from different
sources. Documents on internal structure and processes, organisational
management mechanisms, internal quality assurance systems, were analysed.
Added to this, interviews with university presidents, deans, department heads and
senior quality assurance staff were conducted. The interview questions
investigated topics such as the operation of institutional quality assurance
mechanisms; whether the culture of continuous improvement is evident; whether
the current internal processes are effective; whether the collaboration and
coordination among university units support the improvement of teaching,
learning and research; and to what extent the key stakeholders have been involved
in the quality assurance decision-making and implementation. The main issues
addressed in the interviews included the requirements for the institution to sustain
the quality assurance initiative and make embed quality assurance into
institutional life.
91
Finally, the qualitative data from the interviews with quality assurance experts in
the MoET and managerial staff were analysed to examine the implications of a
viable quality assurance mechanism that could address both accountability and
continuous improvement in public universities.
The sub-sections that follow elaborate on the selected research methods and
relevant issues.
4.2.1 Data collection methods and procedures
4.2.1.1 Data collection methods
Although observation, interview and document review are common methods of
data collection in case study research (Stake 1995), the following methods were
selected for my study: interview and document review. This selection was made
based on the scope and the overall aims of the study. The researcher intended to
investigate how quality assurance practices were being implemented in the case
study universities. The quality assurance framework of investigation covers broad
areas and it would require lengthy periods of observation to gather a
comprehensive picture. This was not within the scope of this research in terms of
time constraints. Therefore, the researcher opted for interviews through which to
gather primary data on the actual implementation, and document reviews to gain
supplementary data on the contexts.
Specifically, semi-structured in-depth interview techniques were applied. This
approach is generally considered to be the most important type of interview in
case study research, producing the richest single source of data if conducted well
(Gillham, 2010). Similarly, Seidman (2006) also highlighted the fact that the in-
depth interview is the primary or even singular method of investigation and, when
conducted with skill, is the most appropriate method for some research situations.
92
In this regard, the researcher could approach the experience of the people in a
contemporary educational organisation by examining the institutional documents
and through the review of existing literature. More importantly, the researcher
could understand the meaning that the people involved in this study make of their
experience, through in-depth interviews. As Seidman (2006) stated, for such an
investigation goal, ‘interviewing provides a necessary, if not always completely
sufficient, avenue of inquiry’ (p. 11).
4.2.1.2 Interviews: some theoretical considerations
By definition, an interview is an inter-view, an interchange of views between two
or more people on a topic of mutual interest (Kvale, 1996, cited in Cohen et al.,
2007). Interviews enable both the interviewer and the interviewee to discuss their
interpretations of the world in which they live, from their own perspectives
(Berry, 1999). As the interviewer and interviewee construct knowledge together,
the interview is neither totally subjective or objective; it is, as Laing (1967, cited
in Cohen et al., 2007) claimed, inter-subjective. Unlike a naturally occurring
conversation, an interview has a specific purpose, is question-based, often follows
a pre-established protocol that controls the order of the interview while at the
same time allowing for spontaneity, requires explicit and detailed responses, and
the interviewer may express ignorance (Creswell, 2007; Cohen et al., 2007).
Regarding the limitations of this method, a researcher should be aware that
interviews, like many other methods, take a great deal of time and sometimes
money. Interviews are also open to interviewer bias, and the issues of
inconvenience, fatigue, and exposure experienced by some respondents are
difficult to avoid (Seidman, 2006; Cohen et al., 2007; Miles et al., 2014).
These possible interview method drawbacks can be addressed if the researcher
has skills and abides by the “rules of the game”. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) put
it, the human instrument (the interviewer) can be smart, flexible and adaptable
and respond to situations with skill, tact and understanding, rather than influence
93
the data collection process with their bias. Although the interview can be a
mutually active meaning-making venture (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004), based
mainly on the participant’s construction and reflection, the interviewer should be
aware that the meaning could be, to some extent, a function of the participant’s
interaction with the interviewer (Seidman, 2006). Therefore, interviewer skills are
needed in order to minimise the distortion that can occur because of their role.
According to Seidman (2006), a researcher can improve the validity of the study,
responding to the question “are the comments of the participant valid?”, by
interviewing a number of participants. In doing so, the researcher can connect
their experiences, and cross-check their comments on the same situation or issue.
In addition, in terms of validity, the interviewer should skilfully structure the
interview with a set of ready-designed questions, with spontaneous probing and
scaffolding questions. The interviewer should also apply specific tactics, such as
keeping quiet, not interrupting, and not trying to redirect the participant’s flow of
thoughts. This allows the participant to make sense to themselves and to the
interviewer (Creswell, 2007; Seidman, 2006). Ultimately, the goal of the study is
to understand how the participants, at the time of their interview, understand and
create meaning of their experience, through language.
In short, the interview is a powerful implement, used to gain insights into
educational issues through understanding the experience of the individuals whose
lives reflect those issues (Seidman, 2006; Cohen et al., 2007).
4.2.1.3 Data collection procedures
The data collection was conducted using an approved procedure (Ethics clearance
reference number HRE13-172). A case study database, as recommended by Yin
(2009), was set up so that the researcher could store all the data files and related
paperwork. First, archival data were collected, then interview data. The primary
data was sourced via the semi-structured interviews with senior managers and
quality assurance officials, while a document review helped provide the context.
94
The procedures that the researcher set up for the interview data collection
followed the stages developed by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) for
interview investigation, based on the work of Kvale (1996, cited in Cohen,
Manion & Morrison, 2007). These stages were: thematising, designing,
interviewing, transcribing, and verifying.
First, the review of relevant literature and the study of the current contexts of the
case study universities helped the researcher form the key themes for
investigation. Then, two sets of interview questions were developed, based on the
thesis research questions, for two target groups - national policy-makers and
institutional policy-makers and implementers. The semi-structured interview
format enabled open-ended questioning around the themes of the research.
Together with these, an interview protocol was set up, as suggested by Creswell
(2009), as a guideline for the interviews. The next step was to conduct pilot
interviews, with revisions subsequently made in order to refine the questions.
After the interview schedule had been planned and booked, the interviews were
conducted. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The
transcriptions were then sent to the interviewees for their review and verification.
During the data collection process, the researcher allowed for flexibility. After the
first two interviews, I reviewed the questions and modified them as needed. As
the process progressed, I also added some scaffolding questions, particularly if
any respondents raised a new aspect of quality assurance practice in their own
university context. Specifically, two scaffolding questions were added to explore
how collaborative research and collaborative learning were promoted at the case
universities. To address the issue of missing data in the earlier interviews, I sent
the extra questions to the previous interviewees via email, requesting their
answers. Finally, all the audio files and transcriptions were compiled into the case
study database.
95
During the conduct of the interviews, the researcher applied Creswell’s (2007)
suggested interview protocol, and Cohen, Manion and Morrison’s (2007, pp.366-
367) guidelines for the conduct of interviews.
4.2.2 Data types, sources and sampling
4.2.2.1 Data types
Data from the semi-structured interviews
As briefly mentioned in the earlier part of this chapter, different versions of semi-
structured interview schedules were developed and administered to the key
officials at the national and institutional levels, and senior quality assurance staff.
The interviews were designed to gather insiders’ perspectives, opinions, beliefs
and experiences, as well as critique and reflections concerning the current system
level quality assurance, the current approaches to quality assurance applied by the
institutions and the recommendations for changes. As indicated previously, the
semi-structured interviews provided the primary data for the study.
Data from the document review
As mentioned earlier, relevant documents were accessed and collected. The
documents relating to the operationalisation of quality assurance were obtained
from the MoET, including policies and procedures, measures, circulars and
regulations, guidelines and instruction manuals. The documents relating to the
implementation of quality assurance were obtained from the selected universities,
including strategic plans, action plans, reports, and any published materials
related to quality assurance in higher education. Document analysis provided
background information of quality assurance practices at system and institutional
levels.
Regarding the issue of data type, one important point raised by Cohen et al.
(2007) was noted for the data collection and analysis. They argued that the
selection of information is essential in case study research and, although it is
useful to record typical and representative occurrences, the researcher should not
96
overlook any ‘infrequent, unrepresentative but critical’ (p. 257) incidents or
events that significantly contribute to the understanding of the case. Cohen and
his associates (2007) emphasised that ‘significance rather than frequency is a
hallmark of case study, offering the researcher an insight into the real dynamics of
situations and people’ (p. 258). In order to avoid omitting any information of this
kind, careful line-by-line data analysis was conducted. Moreover, Holliday’s
(2007) techniques for selecting rich data were applied: selecting the fragments of
data containing ‘the elements that generate the thematic organisation’, and those
containing ‘as many of the key elements as possible within a short space’ (p.
106).
4.2.2.2 Description of sources and sampling
The data sourced from the MoET and selected universities were collected from
the following: 1) key officers at the managerial level (Director or Deputy Director
of the Quality Assurance Department) and senior quality assurance experts
working in the MoET; 2) key officers at the managerial level (Rectors, Vice-
Rectors for academic affairs, Deans and Associate Deans of selected faculties)
and senior quality assurance officers working at the institution; 3) documents
from the MoET archive; and 4) documents from the universities’ archives.
The sampling process is described as follows. First, one faculty was selected from
each of the six case study universities under the institution. The selection was
based on document analysis and discussion with the management boards, which
were used to identify the faculty that had been most engaged and “pro-active” in
quality assurance practices. Evidence, including certificates of regionally and/or
nationally accredited programs, and/or practices of continuous improvement,
were used for the identification of the “most engaged” faculty. Second, from each
of the six selected faculties, two schools were identified for the study. A similar
evidence-based identification process was conducted for choosing the two “most
engaged” schools.
97
The selection of the most engaged faculties and schools was based on two
assumptions. First, the study of the case institution’s faculties and schools that
had more exposure to, and experience in, continuous improvement, and with
programs accredited nationally and regionally, would provide experiential
learning lessons for other public universities. This is particularly important given
that quality assurance is a new policy and practice for Vietnamese higher
education. Second, there would be less to learn from those faculties and schools
that had no or little experience with external quality assurance.
As summarised in the table below, the following staff were invited to participate
in the semi-structured interviews: two members of the MoET, as national policy-
makers; six staff from the six case-study universities, as institutional policy-
makers (e.g. the Rector, or the Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs, or the Director
of Quality Assurance); and eighteen middle managers at the faculty management
level (six Deans and 12 school heads).
Type Description Method Number
National policy-
makers
MoET officers In-depth
interview
2
Institutional policy-
makers
University Rectors/ Vice-
Rectors for AA/ Directors
of QA centers
In-depth
interview
6
Middle managers Faculty Management In-depth
interview
18
Table 2: Data sources - summary of individuals
In the data analysis, the university policy-makers are coded as PM and also
referred to as top leaders, and the policy-implementers are coded as PI and also
referred to as executive leaders or middle managers (Appendix 5).
98
4.2.3 Data analysis modes
First and foremost, the interview transcripts were analysed line-by-line using
Hsieh and Shannon’s (2005) directed content analysis procedure. Additionally,
during the data analysis process, the researcher followed a path of analysing the
data to develop an increasingly detailed understanding of the case, in the form of
themes, issues and descriptions (Stake, 1995; Creswell, 2007, 2009). The basic
steps in this path are as follows:
Figure 5: Data analysis process
Adapted from Creswell (2009)
4.2.3.1 Data analysis techniques
The aim of this study is to investigate the current quality assurance
implementation in Vietnamese public universities. Therefore, the unit of analysis
is institutional level quality assurance systems and practices, in the context of
national higher education operations and quality assurance.
Four stages of the data analysis process (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003) were
employed: data reduction, data display, data consolidation and data integration.
Data reduction involves condensing the dimensionality of the data, for instance,
99
via thematic analysis. Regarding data display, the researcher also applied Miles
and Huberman’s (1994) suggested display format ‘in the form of matrices with
defined rows and columns … driven by the research questions involved, and the
developing concepts, often in the form of codes’ (p. 93). Data consolidation
requires the combination of data to create new or combined variables. Finally, in
the data integration stage, qualitative data are integrated into sets.
When analysing the interview data, it should be reduced to what is of most
significance and interest (Miles & Huberman, 1984) and this data reduction
process should be done inductively rather than deductively. In other words, the
researcher should approach the transcripts with an open mind and let the
significant information emerge (Seidman, 2006; Joshi & Krag, 2010; Grbich,
2013).
During the analysis of the interview data, the researcher adopted the ‘analytic
progression’ suggested by Rein and Schon (1977, cited in Miles & Huberman,
1994, p. 91). That is the progression from telling a ‘first story about a specific
situation’ to ‘constructing a map (locating key variables)’ to ‘building a theory or
model (how the variables are connected, how they influence each other)’ (Miles
& Huberman, 1994, p. 91). This analytic progression can be seen in the chapters
on findings and discussion (Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of this thesis). As Miles and
Huberman (1994) claimed, the adoption of the analytic progression allows the
researcher to move ‘through a series of analysis episodes that condense more and
more data into a more and more coherent understanding of what, why and how’,
and helps ‘construct a deeper story that is both variable-oriented and process-
oriented’ (p. 91).
In this study, the qualitative data were transcribed, reduced, coded and analysed
thematically. The themes for the data analysis were derived from the conceptual
framework of the study that is grounded in the basic research questions. This
practice aligns with the work of Miles and Huberman (1994), as well as
100
Holliday’s (2007) argument that interview data can be organised according to the
main research questions and emerging themes (see also Thomas, 2006), and that
the researcher needs to show in the discussion how the data interconnects.
One important issue that should be mentioned is that the interviews were largely
conducted in Vietnamese. This allowed the participants to express their ideas in
the most precise way, as not all of them have excellent English proficiency. The
transcripts were not entirely translated. Only the quoted phrases were translated by
the researcher, and verified by a NAATI professional translator, as specified in the
approved ethics procedure.
4.2.4 The issues of reliability and validity
Reliability and validity issues were addressed in this study to ensure the quality of
the collected data and the trustworthiness of the findings. Validity refers to the
extent to which results generated by an instrument measure the characteristic or
variable it is intended to measure (correctness or truth of inferences). Reliability
refers to the stability, and consistency of the findings.
As the qualitative researcher is interested in multiple realities and a diversity of
perceptions, data should be collected from various sources. This fits well with
Stake’s (2011) suggestion that the researcher can reduce the likelihood of
misinterpretation by employing such procedures as redundancy of data gathering
and triangulation using multiple perceptions to verify the repeatability of an
observation or interpretation. In this study, the perceptions of participants
concerning quality assurance practices in their respective universities, as well as
the factors that influence existing practices, were captured. This allowed the
researcher to gain a comprehensive picture of the case under study. Moreover, in
order to make the empirical data more objective and less subjective, the
researcher used replicative methods, following disciplined practices of analysis
and triangulation (Stake, 2004), in order to separate experiential knowledge from
101
opinion and preference (Busher & James, 2007), or as Cohen et al. (2007) put it,
knowledge versus inference. These measures helped ensure the validity of the
study.
During the data collection and analysis processes, as mentioned earlier in this
chapter, the researcher applied Creswell’s (2009) suggestions on using interview
protocols and protocol for recording information. Yin’s (2009) principles were
also applied, including using multiple sources of evidence, using a case study
database and maintaining a chain of evidence. Also, the member checking
technique was employed, involving sending interview transcripts to interviewees
for verification. This is how the reliability of the study was managed.
The following additional activities were undertaken to improve the validity of the
study:
(a) Developing an understanding of the topic through an in-depth review of
the literature on quality assurance in higher education, and the study of the
Vietnamese context. This helped set up a framework for investigation that
acted as a point of reference during the whole processes of data collection
and data analysis.
(b) Rechecking the data and interpretation of results; keeping updated about
quality assurance practices and policy changes at the site universities; and
frequent discussions about the issues under study with colleagues at
Vietnamese public universities.
With the implementation of the above measures, the researcher is confident that
the study is both reliable and valid.
4.3 Ethical considerations
The research was conducted using an approved ethics procedure. Accordingly, the
information obtained from this study may be communicated, in summary format,
to interested parties (such as other academics, government organisations), but no
individuals/school/faculty within each institution will be identified in any report.
102
All information gathered from individual participants during the study was
disguised by use of a 'coded name'. For example, interview 06-PM1-U3 refers to
the top level policy making leader- rector or vice-rector from university 3, whose
random turn of interview was the 6th; interview 23-PI2-U4 refers to one of the two
policy implementers or executive leaders- school heads from university 4, whose
random turn of interview was the 23rd. (Pls see Appendix 5- Interview coding for
more details).
The researcher has a formal relationship with one of the six universities under
study and has experience in both working as an academic staff and working as a
middle manager. This fact may admittedly affect the objectivity of the
investigation, however, at the same time may enhance the in-depth of the data
interpretation, as the researcher has the perspective of an “insider”. To address this
issue, the researcher strictly followed the approved ethics procedure, and tried to
be cautious, transparent and neutral throughout the investigation.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented the selected paradigm, methodology and methods for
the research project. The study was conducted under the overarching umbrella of
interpretivism, with a multiple-case design. Qualitative methods were used for
data collection and data analysis. Specifically, a document review and in-depth
semi-structured interviews were employed. Additionally, the limitations of the
case study methodology and the requirements for data collection and analysis
were discussed. It was anticipated that the measures applied to address these
challenges would improve the reliability and validity of the study.
In the subsequent chapter, the context of the study or the detailed description of
the context in which the case institution operates, is presented.
103
CHAPTER 5. CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS:
VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCATION AND QUALITY
ASSURANCE
Introduction
This chapter deals with the contextual background for the study. It firstly provides
an overview of the education system in Vietnam, with a brief analysis of the
historical, social and psychological factors that influence Vietnamese education.
This is followed by the identification of common styles of institutional
organisation. The chapter continues with a summary of the development of
quality assurance in Vietnam, with its opportunities and challenges. Together with
Chapters 2 and 3, this chapter helps frame the research questions for data
collection.
5.1 The educational system in Vietnam
5.1.1 The historical evolution of the national educational system
Geographically, Vietnam is a Southeast Asian country, sharing borders with
China to the north, and Laos and Cambodia to the west. The Eastern Sea borders
Vietnam’s eastern and southern sides. Demographically, Vietnam has 54 ethnic
groups, with the Kinh group forming the majority. The official language is
Vietnamese (the language of the Kinh ethnic group).
Vietnam has a long standing tradition of being an “eager to learn” nation. The
whole society pays respect to teachers (London, 2011a). A common traditional
saying is that during the national New Year you visit your parents on the second
day and visit your teachers on the third day. These days, the whole country
celebrates Teachers’ Day every November 20th.
Vietnam has a young population, with the number of people of school age (under
the age of 18) accounting for 31.8% of the population, with those under the age of
104
15 accounting for 24.1% (GSO, 2011). Vietnam has a relatively high population
growth rate of nearly one million per year, reaching 90 million in 2011 (National
announcement, 1 November 2011). With the total number of students enrolled in
all levels of education at nearly 23 million, or about 25% of the population (GSO,
2012), Vietnam today faces great demands for education at all levels.
The development of Vietnamese education can be divided into three main
periods: before 1945, from 1945 to1986, and from 1986 up to the present (MoET,
2014).
Period 1: before 1945
During the feudalism period between the tenth and the nineteenth centuries, the
purpose of education was to select and educate intellectual individuals to become
lords working for the governing dynasties (MoET, 2014). During these centuries,
there were wars against Chinese invaders, but the peaceful intervals between wars
allowed for cultural and educational exchanges between China and Vietnam. As a
result, Vietnamese Education is profoundly influenced by the Chinese
philosophy: Confucianism (Welch, 2010; London, 2011a; Tran & Marginson,
2014). Written Vietnamese during these centuries is known as Nom hieroglyphs,
influenced by written Chinese, and spoken Vietnamese borrowed a large amount
of vocabulary from Chinese. Education reinforced the standards for social and
individual behaviours. For example, it was taught at schools that for girls and
women ‘When living with parents - obey your father, when getting married - obey
your husband, when your husband is dead - obey your son’, or for men ‘three
tasks for a man’s life: managing your family, governing your country, and
conquering the world’ (Nguyen, 2011, p. 57).
During the period from the end of the nineteenth century to the first half of the
twentieth century, Vietnam and the whole of Indochina were under the
colonisation of the French. Confucian education was replaced by French-
Vietnamese education, which produced qualified human resources for the ruling
105
government (MoET, 2014). The main language taught in schools was French. The
most talented students were sent to study at universities in France, then back to
Vietnam to work for the ruling government. As in other colonial contexts, the
education system, organisational structure, governance and leadership in
Vietnamese schools resembled those of France. The curriculum was strongly
influenced by colonial ideology, with the subject contents either totally borrowed
from France or educating students in a love for France (MoET, 2014).
Period 2: from 1945 to 1986
There were four turning points in Vietnamese history in this period: the
Vietnamese declaration of independence in 1945; the end of the war against
French in 1954; the end of the war against the USA in 1975; and the start of the
renovation period in 1986, with the opening of Vietnam’s door to the world
(MoET, 2014).
During the early years of this period, after gaining independence, the focus of
education was on the eradication of illiteracy and the provision of compulsory
elementary education for the whole population (MoET, 2014). From 1954 to 1975
there were two systems of education in Vietnam: one in the north, following the
model of the socialist Soviet Union; the other in the south following the American
model. After the reunification of the country in 1975, the regional education
systems were merged and the national system was established. According to
several studies on Vietnamese education (see for example, Lam & Vu, 2012; Dao
& Hayden, 2010; Dao, 2014; London, 2011b), the influence of the Soviet model
and educational philosophies can be seen through all levels of education, for
example, in the centralised control of the whole education system, the test-based
assessment of achievement, the organisation of unitary discipline universities, and
the university entrance examination.
106
Period 3: 1986 up to the present
After a decade of moving towards socialism, with a huge amount of post-war
reconstruction and economical challenges, Vietnam implemented an important
policy in 1986, known as “doi moi” renovation. This introduced reforms intended
to facilitate the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy,
encouraging the establishment of private businesses and foreign investment. This
step towards a market economy, accompanied by the persistent efforts of the
whole country, brought Vietnam to a new period in its history. As reviewed by
Lam and Vu (2012), this period is marked by radical achievements and
improvements in all realms of socioeconomic development, political stability, and
international integration.
Significant milestones in Vietnam’s external relations include: the normalisation
between Vietnam and the USA in 1995, with the trade embargo lifted one year
before; becoming an official member of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) in 1995; and joining the World Trade Organisation in early
2007. These international integration moves brought opportunities and challenges
for Vietnam in general, and for its education system (Freire, 2011; Lam & Vu,
2012; Dang, 2016).
During this period, Vietnamese education experienced the most overwhelming
changes in its history. The influence of western ideas in education can be seen in
changes in the length of general education from 10 to 12 years and higher
education from 5 to 4 years. It was also evident in changes to the state funding
scheme for education at all levels, such as removing total subsidisation, providing
allowances for private institutions, and involving different stakeholders in
financing education.10 Western influences were also seen in changes to the
curriculum, to add or remove certain subjects; changes in teaching and learning
10 The Vietnamese term is socialisation of education i.e. different stakeholders, such as parents,
banks, industries or employers, provide funding/loans for their children’s or prospective
employees’ education.
107
approaches towards learner-centeredness; and changes in assessment to include
continuous assessment (Tran, 2014; Tran & Nguyen, 2015; Dang, 2016).
As stated in the National Report on Education for All (MoET, 2014), several
educational reforms were made during this period, accompanied by changed legal
and regulatory frameworks. These aimed at meeting the needs of the economy
and improving the quality and relevance of education, as well as the efficiency of
the educational system.
Through these reforms, the mainstream education structure became 5-4-3-4,
representing the number of years for the four levels of primary, lower secondary,
upper secondary and tertiary education. This was specified in Article 4 of the
Education Law passed in 1998 and amended and supplemented in 2005 and 2009,
as follows:
(a) There are mainstream/formal education and continuing/informal education
(b) The mainstream education consists of 4 levels: early childhood education
(nursery and kindergarten), general education (primary, lower secondary
and upper secondary), vocational education (professional secondary and
vocational training), and higher education (undergraduate and post-
graduate)
The figure below is a diagram of the current mainstream education system of
Vietnam.
108
Figure 6: Structure of the formal education system of Vietnam
Source: Adapted from the National Report on Education for All (2014)
Note: UEE is university entrance examination
As noted by Pham (2012), the education system has developed extensively across
the whole country, with a wide range of institutions, types of ownership (public-
private), and modes of training (formal education, distant education, continuing
education). A summary of these institutions in 2012 is presented in the table
below.
109
Level
Quantity
Non-public institutions
Quantity Percentage
1 University 204 54 26.47
2 College 215 28 13.02
3 Vocational school 295 97 32.88
4 School 28,803 520 1.81
5 Kindergarten 10,584 2,556 24.15
6 Continuing education centre 712
Total number 40,813
Table 3: Number of educational institutions in Vietnam in 2012
Source: GSO (2012)
5.1.2 Factors influencing Vietnamese education
In the preceding section, some of the factors that have influenced the educational
systems of Vietnam have been briefly discussed. In the following section, more
factors are identified and their impact analysed.
Chinese Confucianism
Chinese Confucianism reached Vietnam about 2000 years ago and has had a
significant influence on all areas of its society. Elements of the contemporary
Vietnamese higher education system reflect Chinese and Confucianism influences
(Welch, 2010). These can be found in the prevailing teacher-centred teaching and
learning approach in most levels of education. Teachers are “gurus” who are
expected to know everything, learners are expected to obey and respect teachers;
questions from students are not welcome or encouraged but rather, considered as
challenges to the teachers (Tran & Nguyen, 2015). The influence is not only
reflected in the relationship between teachers and learners, but also in the hidden
curriculum. That said, parents, teachers and peers expect students to obey the
social hierarchy and not to challenge or criticise their elders (Doan, 2005).
Together with a rote-learning, close-book examination oriented education, these
110
influences impedes exploratory learning, creativity and critical thinking among
Vietnamese young people.
Colonialism and neo-colonialism
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Vietnam went through two major wars
against the French, and against the USA. Several decades after the country was
liberated, traces of colonial and neo-colonial influences are still omnipresent
(London 2011a). Particularly, since the implementation of the open-door policy in
1986, the influence of western ideas in education has become stronger than ever,
although mainly in the higher education sector (Welch, 2010). This is reflected in,
for example, the adoption of the education system structure, especially that of
higher education, the structure of curricula at all levels, the higher education
teaching methodologies that facilitate learner autonomy and learner-centeredness,
credit-based education programs, and recently, quality assurance in higher
education (MoET, 2014).
The ex-Soviet educational philosophy
Vietnam today still claims to be a socialist country, and the impact of the ex-
Soviet educational philosophy on the educational system is still strong (Dao,
2014). While private institutions are corporate and governed by school councils,
public institutions are still centrally controlled by the MoET and its departments,
or line-management ministries and state instrumentalities (Tran, 2014). The top-
down approach to governance, leadership and decision-making; bureaucracy and
the reliance on state funding, are still common features of the majority of
educational institutions (Dao & Hayden, 2010). Specifically, as observed during
this research in higher education, the Soviet-styled single discipline universities,
as well as the academic year based rather than credit-based education, limit the
chances for students to pursue inter-disciplinary studies and university researchers
to conduct inter-disciplinary research.
111
Political issues
Vietnam has a single party government. This has resulted in politically-driven
impact on the country’s education. For example, as Dao (2014) noted in her case
study on higher education reforms, Vietnamese universities are governed by two
authority systems: academic administrative and the party system. The party
system is in charge of personnel appointments, strategic plans and ideological
leadership.
The direct influence of the communist party on the school curriculum can be seen
at all other levels of education. For general education, the contents of the two
subjects Vietnamese Literature and Vietnamese History are strictly controlled by
the party system at the ministerial level. Therefore, sensitive content areas, such
as literature of South Vietnam during the US war, are overlooked, or several
historical events are biasedly depicted (Nguyen, 2015). In higher education, there
are what curriculum renovation experts informally call “untouchable” topics,
which include such mandated subjects as Marxism-Leninism, Ho Chi Minh
ideology, and the history of the Vietnamese communist party (Doan, 2005).
Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are still “sensitive” concepts in
Vietnamese education (George, 2011).
Asian culture
Like many other Asian countries sharing the “eager to learn” tradition, such as
China, Korea, Japan, and Singapore, Vietnam is still strongly influenced by the
ideologies of the whole continent. Competitive learning and achievement-driven
teaching and learning are still popular. As getting to university is the goal of
almost all families, the pressure on teachers and students starts from early
childhood education, as most parents want their child/children to get a head start
from the outset (Doan, 2015). When a child starts school, he/she actually begins a
long-term race to university. Extra coaching, extra classes, studying ahead of the
curriculum become exhausting routines and achievement-driven teaching and
learning becomes the “chronic disease” of Vietnamese education (Phan, 2013).
112
Globalisation
Globalisation and the internet appear to have both positive and negative impacts
on Vietnamese education, as with many other countries. On one hand, education
managers, teachers and students have access to unlimited resources and advanced
tools for research and exploratory studies, as well as opportunities for exchanging
research findings, sharing experiences and lessons. Information technology and
the internet make viable several educational reforms, including curriculum
renovation, digitalisation of syllabuses, e-learning and embedded learning (Ho,
2011). On the other hand, managers and teachers are challenged to confront high-
achieving students’ questions on their own right to pursue their interests, and at
the same time address average and low-achieving students’ overwhelming
confusion caused by the mismatch between what they are taught and what they
observe in real life. Regarding the governance of education, as reported by
London (2010b), the globalisation of Vietnam’s social and political economy has
affected, though not diminished, the centrality in education governance.
As an important segment of Vietnamese education, higher education has been
profoundly affected by international influences (Welch, 2010). These influences
can be seen in the long history of higher learning in Vietnam from the tenth
century onwards, as discussed earlier, and are apparent in the attributes of the
contemporary system. Most recently, as noted by Welch (2010) in his study on
the internationalisation of Vietnamese higher education, the system is influenced
by the outflow of Vietnamese students to study overseas; by the growing presence
of foreign universities in Vietnam; and by the increasing number of international
alliances. The western-eastern interchange of philosophies and approaches, ideas
and models are, therefore, likely to be unavoidable in Vietnamese higher
education.
To a certain extent, all of the above factors have exerted their impact on the
educational system, as well as the stakeholders involved. The next section focuses
specifically on higher education.
113
5.1.3 Features of Vietnamese higher education
5.1.3.1 A brief history of Vietnam’s higher education development
The modern higher education system in Vietnam does not have a long history. As
reported by Lam and Vu (2012), the very first modern university was established
in 1906, serving the whole Indochina. During the wars against the French and the
USA, new universities and colleges were established with a mission to produce
human resources for the construction and reconstruction of the country. Since the
implementation of the open-door policy in 1986, the number of universities and
colleges has increased extensively, mostly following the Soviet model of single
discipline institutions (Tran 2014). From late 1993 to early 1994, five multi-
disciplinary universities in five main regions of the country - Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh
city, Hue, Danang and Thai Nguyen - were established, based on the
amalgamation of several leading universities. These regional institutions formed
the core of the higher education system.
In early 2000s, together with the pre-existing polytechnic universities in Hanoi
and Ho Chi Minh city, and a regional multi-disciplinary university in Can Tho,
these regional institutions implemented the fundamental change from academic
year based education to credit-based education. This allows for credit transfer and
cross-disciplinary studies and research (Hayden & Lam, 2007).
Another major change in the higher education system in the twenty-first century
has been the privatisation of education. Many private universities and community
colleges have been established, providing a broader platform for high school
graduates. According to MoET statistics for 2012-2013, Vietnam had 204
universities and 215 colleges, excluding those belonging to the police and the
army. At university and college levels, about 5,000 training programs, not
including distant programs, were being undertaken, with 300 programs jointly
conducted with overseas institutions (Pham, 2012). The enrolment rate during the
ten-year period from 2001 to 2011 increased about 35% and the MoET projects
114
that by 2020 the enrolment rate will be 450 students per 10,000 persons (i.e., there
will be about 4.5 million students by that time) (Dao, 2014).
The MoET has developed and implemented a good number of projects, with
foreign funding, to improve educational quality, the relevance of programs,
efficiency, equity and expanded access at all levels. Specifically, the latest
initiative, Project Foreign Language 2020 (MoET, 2011), aims at improving the
quality of teaching and learning foreign languages in Vietnamese schools, and
renewing foreign language teaching methodologies and assessment. This project
is expected to help solve the bottleneck problem of Vietnamese education –
professionals and academics lacking foreign languages, especially English,
needed for integration into world education.
5.1.3.2 Common styles of institutional organisation
As claimed by Welch (2010), since its inception, the character of Vietnamese
higher education has been significantly shaped by external influences. These are
clearly reflected in all aspects, such as curriculum content, intellectual influences,
as well as organisational and management styles.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the organisation and governance of
Vietnamese universities reflected the conceptual frameworks of the Soviet-styled
universities and then those of western universities. Affected particularly by the
political control of the government and the communist party (Tran, 2014; Dao,
2014), and due to the fact that most still rely on state funding, many Vietnamese
universities are still overlooking academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
This is likely because they are denied these by the government (Hayden & Lam,
2007). Additionally, different universities have different starting points, in terms
of foundation time, size and resources. Their organisational styles are, therefore,
varied.
115
The four most popular organisational styles: organised anarchy, collegium,
bureaucracy and cultural, were reviewed in Chapter 3 and they align well with the
reality of most Vietnamese universities. It should be noted, however, that there is
no relevant literature or empirical study on this aspect of Vietnamese universities.
The following section provides a brief description of the four representative
organisational styles as they relate to the Vietnamese context. This will be
discussed in more detail in the analysis of data in the coming chapters.
From the researcher’s observation during twenty years working in the public
higher education sector, the most common organisational style of Vietnamese
universities is organised anarchy, with loosely coupled units. First, the missions
and goals of these universities are not clear, as they mainly adopt those dictated
by the MoET. For example, until the adoption of the doi moi policy, the main
mission of many public universities was the rather vague “educating the new
socialist persons” (ULIS, 1990, p. 2). As a consequence, the units in these
universities are not well connected due to the lack of clear institutional goals and
engaging action plans. In particular, there is a lack of cooperation and
collaboration between academic and administrative units. The other two features
of organised anarchy, ‘unclear technology and fluid participation’ (Manning,
2013, p. 31) are also reflected in most Vietnamese universities. Unclear
technology refers to the different technologies, methods and approaches that
students, teachers and researchers apply in their learning, teaching and research,
respectively. Fluid participation represents the varied involvement with the
institution of various groups - students, faculty, administrative staff, leaders and
managers.
In flagship universities such as the two national universities or the regional
universities, their operations reflect a combination of collegium and bureaucracy.
These two organisational styles are not mutually exclusive (Manning, 2013). In
some of these universities, the governance and management systems are
substantially collegial, allowing the academic faculty to participate in the
116
decision-making process, planning and policy-making at the institutional level,
either directly or through their representatives. Their priorities are teaching and
research; whereas the administrators take the leading role in setting and
maintaining standards of performance, achieving institutional goals and their
priorities are policies, procedures, and quality services. However, in some other
universities in this flagship group, bureaucracy still seems to dominate over the
collegium style, as governance is centralised, the organisational structure is
hierarchical with more power at the top, and decision-making is top-down.
Evidence for this argument can be found in Chapter 6.
While the bureaucracy style is more common in prestigious universities, the
cultural style appears to be welcome in newly founded universities, especially
those that can attract highly qualified academic staff and overseas post-graduates.
In these institutions, a combination of collegium and cultural styles can be found.
Faculties, administrators, and students together shape their institutional culture.
This culture acts as a catalyst for internal and external communication and
collaboration.
Further discussion is provided in subsequent chapters about how these
organisational styles shape the quality assurance practices at the case universities.
5.1.3.3 Challenges and opportunities for Vietnamese higher education
As reviewed by several scholars (see, for example, Dang, 2016; Tran, 2014;
London, 2010a, 2010b; George, 2011) and reported in the public media in
Vietnam, Vietnamese higher education institutions are facing several challenges
while still dealing with existing problems.
The first and biggest challenge for Vietnamese universities appears to be
reforming governance to facilitate autonomy and decentralisation (Tran, 2014;
Nguyen, 2011; London, 2010a; Dao & Hayden, 2010). At present, most
universities have limited autonomy, as the MoET still controls centrally across a
117
number of areas: from appointing top management personnel, approving strategic
plans and curriculum, and granting budgets, to determining enrolment levels and
organising the national university entrance examinations (SEAMEO, 2007). An
example of this MoET centralisation lies in the control of curriculum for
undergraduate courses, including ‘content structure, number of subjects, duration
of training, time proportion between studying and practicing’ (Hayden, 2005, p.
9). As Dao and Hayden (2010) claimed, most public universities in Vietnam ‘do
not have adequate administrative systems for the purposes of being able to
exercise institutional autonomy effectively’ (p. 135). As can be seen in the
coming chapters on data analysis, the lack of institutional autonomy is an
inhibitor to the implementation and sustaining of quality assurance initiatives.
Only a few colleges among the two national universities can enjoy their
autonomy, especially financial autonomy, albeit only to a certain extent. The
reason is that the two national universities are governed by the Cabinet, not the
MoET. When the proportion of state budget for public higher education sector
tends to remain static, if universities continue to rely on the government and not
allowed to be financially autonomous, it is not likely that they can undertake
transformative changes that require investment. As such, disentangling the public
universities from the bureaucratic line-management control of MoET is a big
challenge (Dao, 2014).
Significant legislative and regulatory frameworks have been put in place to allow
Vietnamese education institutions to implement prominent reforms. The first of
these is the Education Law, passed in 2005 and amended in 2009, with Article 14
stating that the government decides to ‘exercise decentralization on educational
management, strengthen the autonomy and accountabilities of educational
institutions’. The second framework is the Higher Education Reform Agenda
(HERA) of 2005, which is a blueprint for system reform by 2020, giving tertiary
institutions autonomy to decide on, and bear responsibility for, their training,
research, organisation, personnel and finance (VNGO, 2005). The improved
118
autonomy of HEIs is designed to make them become ‘more responsive to market
forces’ (Ho, 2011, p. 262).
Another noteworthy challenge for Vietnamese higher education is the
development of a viable mechanism for quality assurance and strengthening
internal efficiency in the higher education system (Pham, 2012). Several aspects
are expected to improve through such mechanisms, including strategic planning
and management, the quality of teaching and learning, research capacity, the
quality and relevance of the training programs, and institutional infrastructure.
In order to enhance their institutional capacity for better competitiveness in the
global market, Vietnamese universities need to integrate quality assurance into
their strategic plan. This will be further elaborated on in the next section.
5.2 The quality assurance system in Vietnam
As highlighted in the literature review in Chapter 2, quality assurance has been
implemented in many developed regions of the world for more than two decades,
with the USA and European countries major arenas in this field, with leading
philosophies, approaches and frameworks (Harvey & Williams 2010). In
neighbouring Asian countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand, quality
assurance mechanisms and systems were instituted more than a decade ago (Mok,
2000; AU, 2000). The concept of a distinct quality assurance system is, however,
relatively new in higher education in Vietnam.
5.2.1 Types of quality assurance already in place
The development of quality assurance in higher education in Vietnam can be
summarised as follows: Prior to 1986, quality assurance was synonymous with
the control of inputs, as student intake was strictly controlled by the MoET via
high-stakes entrance examinations. Since the mid-1980s, when the country
adopted an open-door policy, all sectors of society and economy, including higher
education, have experienced dramatic changes. The increasing number of students
119
and institutions, in both the public and private sectors, as well as the diversity of
modes of training and training programs, create challenges for Vietnamese higher
education in terms of assuring the quality of large-scaled educational provision. A
need emerged to establish a proper quality assurance system to address this
challenge (Adams et al., 2012a; Oliver, 2004; Nguyen, et al., 2009; Lam & Vu,
2012; Pham, 2012).
Before 2000, the main type of quality management practised within the MoET
system was quality control, which was implemented through inspection and
examination of educational delivery by the ministry, the department, the office
and institutional levels (Pham, 2012). Pham (2012) also noted that quality control
was not comprehensively practised in large-sized institutions and addressed only
the quantifiable matters, rather than creativity or quality in teaching and learning,
or the renovation of curriculum and teaching methodologies. Many leading
universities did conduct their own quality assurance activities. For example, ideas
of improving the quality of training programs through review and external
examination processes were practised as an internal affair in these universities.
However, no empirical evidence has been found to show whether these practices
were formal and institutionalised.
The first adopted quality assurance initiative was accreditation (of educational
institutions and educational programs), founded and funded by the government in
2002 (Lam & Vu, 2012). Accreditation standards and processes, which were
developed with the USA model as a point of reference, were approved by the
MoET in 2004 (Nguyen et al., 2009).
5.2.2 The adopted framework and the implementation of quality assurance
As reported by Pham, a quality assurance policy-maker at the MoET (2012),
Vietnam has learnt from world experience and other quality assurance models. It
has adopted the Asian-Pacific framework (Stella, 2008) and the framework of the
ASEAN university network (AUN), which were developed based on a common
120
European model. A detailed description of the framework adopted by Vietnam
HEIs is presented in Chapter 6.
As already indicated, Vietnam’s quality assurance model is significantly
influenced by Asian-Pacific countries with similar cultures and contexts (Pham,
2012). Nevertheless, as reported by Pham (2012), the bilateral cooperation and
funded projects from international organisations, notably the World Bank, the
Asian Development Bank, UNESCO, international quality assurance agencies in
higher education (INQAAHE), Asian-Pacific quality network (APQN), Southeast
Asian ministers of education organisation (SEAMEO), and countries like the
USA, Australia and the Netherlands, have had a certain impact on how Vietnam
has further developed its quality assurance framework.
5.2.3 The legal and regulatory framework for quality assurance in higher
education
Since quality assurance in higher education was put into practice, regulations
relating to this issue have been gradually integrated into the legal and regulatory
system at the national level: Articles 17, 58 and 99 of the Education Law passed
in 2005 relate to educational accreditation (VNA, 2005); and Part 3a in the
Education Law (amended and supplemented in 2009) includes three additional
articles on educational accreditation (VNA, 2009). The Higher Education Law,
passed in 2012, contains one chapter (Chapter VII) on higher education quality
assurance and accreditation (VNA, 2012).
The government issued detailed regulatory documents and guidelines for
implementation: Decree number 75/2006/ND-CP (VNGO 2006)) includes
Chapter II, Articles 38-40 on educational accreditation; and Decree number
31/2011/ND-CP (VNGO 2011), amends and supplements Articles 38 and 39 of
Decree 75/2006/ND-CP, in Article 1, items 14 and 15. Pham (2012) reported that
the MoET developed a decree guiding the implementation of the Higher
Education Law, providing detailed guidelines and instructions for the
implementation of Chapter VII on higher education quality assurance and
accreditation.
121
In another important governmental document, The Education Strategic
Development Plan 2011-2020 (MoET, 2011), there is a requirement for the
development of a system of educational quality accreditation agencies. These
agencies are expected to conduct external accreditation of educational institutions
at all levels, and of professional training and higher education programs.
In the decision of the Prime Minister on Network planning of universities and
colleges for the period 2006-2020, one solution involved ‘extensively
implementing higher education accreditation and assessment’ (Pham, 2012).
From 2004 to 2012, the MoET issued eight decisions, directives and circulars
regulating on higher education accreditation cycles, procedures, criteria and
standards. In 2008, the General Department for Educational Testing and
Accreditation (GDETA) issued four official documents regulating on self-
assessment and the use of higher education accreditation criteria.
The enactment of comprehensive and functional legal and regulatory frameworks,
as discussed above, provides Vietnamese higher education with a scaffold
stipulating the requirements for quality assurance in universities, as well as other
levels of education. The quality assurance practices adopted elsewhere in the
higher education system could now be reinforced and officially endorsed by the
government.
5.2.4 Opportunities and challenges for Vietnamese quality assurance
A review of the context of quality assurance in higher education in Vietnam helps
identify the gaps between Vietnam and the world. First, the national quality
assurance agency, GDETA, is not an independent body; it remains under the
direct supervision and governance of the MoET. Second, the structure of the
quality assurance system was completed with the establishment of the GDETA, as
well as quality assurance centres of the national and regional universities and
quality assurance units within all universities. However, the current quality
assurance mechanism does not facilitate the independence of the accreditation
process. For example, there has been no independent quality assurance agency to
122
conduct external reviews for accreditation. Third, the internal quality assurance
within higher education institutions still focuses on compliance rather than
improvement for increased competitiveness. Finally, the only type of quality
assurance conducted by the MoET has been accreditation and this has included
only self-assessment and peer review, with no external evaluation (Lam & Vu,
2012; Nguyen et al., 2009).
Within the last decade, Vietnam has been provided with international training and
expert assistance to establish an accreditation scheme. During 2002-2003,
Vietnam joined the SEAMEO higher education quality assurance group to
develop a policy framework for quality assurance in higher education in
Southeast Asia. During 2005-2008, with funding from the Netherlands HBO-raad
(the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences), Vietnam
conducted the project, “Establishing five quality assurance centers in five regional
universities of Thai Nguyen, Hue, Danang, Vinh and Can Tho, and capacity
building at system level”. This project helped Vietnam develop institutional
internal quality assurance systems applicable to other universities (Pham, 2012).
Vietnam also participated in accreditation pilot projects funded by the World
Bank and the Netherlands (Pham, 2012). Higher education policy in Vietnam
strives for the combination of improvement and control through the use of
accreditation (more of a control instrument) (Dao, 2014). However, more
conditions are needed for this to be effective, such as “smart criteria” on
sustainable internal quality assurance schemes, or a decision-making context with
positive incentives (Westerheijden, Cremonini & Van Empel, 2010).
According to Pham (2012), the MoET developed the legal and regulatory
frameworks for the establishment of independent quality assurance/accreditation
agencies, and for the procedures and cycle of educational quality accreditation of
training institutions and training programs. These legal and regulatory
frameworks provide the necessary conditions for public HEIs to develop their
quality assurance mechanisms.
123
Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of modern higher education in Vietnam, in
the context of the country’s broader education. This has been shaped by the
influences of western educational systems and several other ideological and
cultural factors. The rapid changes in the Vietnamese economy and international
integration have brought about both opportunities and challenges for Vietnamese
education in general, and Vietnamese higher education in particular.
The high and still increasing demands of the labour market and the economy are
creating pressure for higher education, forcing it to renew or improve the quality
and relevance of training programs, and expand enrolment. More than ever, the
human resources involved in higher education (he academic faculty and
administrators) are vital to the assurance of educational quality and efficiency. In
order to cope with external requirements and internal capacity building needs,
Vietnamese higher education has to develop a viable quality assurance scheme.
In Chapters 6, 7 and 8, the connections between the findings and discussion on
the current quality assurance practices at the case universities, and the education
traditions and features of higher education of Vietnam will be discussed in more
detail.
124
CHAPTER 6. THE CURRENT QUALITY ASSURANCE
PRACTICE AT THE CASE-STUDY INSTITUTION
Introduction
As outlined in Chapter 4, the data from the document analysis and semi-
structured interviews were collected and analysed around the six-component
theoretical framework, in order to answer the three research questions.
Furthermore, during the analysis of the data, the interactions of the following
elements provided the researcher with insightful lenses: Manning’s (2013) four
organisational theories; Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four organisational frames; the
six member universities; and the three levels of espousal, enactment and
experience relating to the quality assurance initiative.
As the findings are reported in the sequence of the research questions, this chapter
addresses research question 1: How are the case study universities conducting
their quality assurance? This includes the two sub-questions: What are the key
components of their quality assurance frameworks? and What are the possible
explanations for the discrepancies among the universities’ quality assurance
practices?
In this chapter, first the case description is presented, setting the scene for the
report. In this section, data from both sources, the documents and interviews, are
reviewed. Then the emerging themes are reported, and discussion is presented.
The significant findings are selected and written in the form of mini narratives,
following the guiding five-component quality assurance framework developed for
this study; in light of the four organisational theories adopted by the universities;
and with the three levels of espoused, enacted and experienced in quality
assurance implementation.
125
6.1 Description of the case: The national institution and its six affiliated
universities
6.1.1 Overview
The national institution, the case under study, was established in 1993, as a result
of the MoET’s initiative to establish a network of five regional multi-disciplinary
universities. These were to be the flagship universities of Vietnam’s higher
education system (MoET, 2014). Since the amalgamation of three leading and
prestigious universities in the capital city of Hanoi, the oldest one established in
1906, the national institution has undergone several stages of development. This
has included the separation of one member university, and the establishment of
new member universities, affiliated schools, research institutes and centres. At the
time of my data collection, the institution had six member universities, covering a
wide range of disciplines. At present it has seven member universities, five
affiliated schools, five research institutes, and four training and research centres.11
Due to the design of my study, in this chapter the institution is described as it was
when the data was being collected (i.e. when there were six constituent
universities). For the purposes of the research, these universities were numbered
(e.g. university 1, university 2 etc.). Also, due to the focus of the study - quality
assurance in public universities - any quality assurance practices at affiliated
schools, research institutes and training/research centres, are not mentioned. The
table below provides a brief overview of the six member universities.
11 Updated information from the institution’s website
126
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6
Foundation year
1906 1906 1955 2004 2007 2009
Number of
disciplines
22 21 12 8 6 6
Number of bachelor
programs
37 27 18 11 9 6
Number of staff
723 527 769 216 251 142
Number of students
(full-time programs)
5735 5890 4384 2527 1540 1380
Table 4: Administrative information about the member universities
Source: Documents 4, 5 & 10 (Appendix 4)
As can be seen from the table above, universities 1, 2 and 3 are older, and larger
in size, than the other three universities. It should be noted that the undergraduate
students in university 6 come from universities 1, 2, 4 and 5, as they are expected
to take courses on teaching methodologies offered by university 6, on top of
courses in a specialised field, and graduate as teachers of their selected field
(Interview 04-U6).
The disciplines offered at the universities are natural sciences (university 1),
social sciences and humanities (university 2), languages and international studies
(university 3), engineering and technology (university 4), economics and business
(university 5), and education (university 6).
In order to provide clarity about how the case institution implements its quality
assurance, it is necessary to view the quality assurance situation at the institution
and its member universities through the lens of organisational theories.
Organisational theories
As discussed in the literature review in Chapter 3, to some extent, the
organisational theory or a combination of theories adopted by HEIs influence
their choices of development policies, including quality assurance policy.
127
The organisation and operation of the case institution match well with the
bureaucracy model (discussed in Chapter 3) as developed by Manning (2013).
The organisational structure is hierarchical, with authority concentrating at the
top, from the President and his Cabinet. This is shown in the figure below.
Figure 7: The case institution’s organisational structure
Source: the institution’s website
Due to its size and multi-disciplinary nature, management in the institution is
decentralised to the individual universities. This, to a certain extent, allows for
participatory strategic planning and decision-making. In quality assurance
practice, the institution has to meet the system level requirements as regulated by
the MoET and, in turn, impose the quality assurance P&P on the member
universities (Interview 09-M2, p. 2). It can therefore be said that at the espoused
level, the quality assurance P&P are inherent and top-down.
While the case institution adopts a bureaucracy approach to ensure
standardisation and objectivity, especially in complex task implementation, the
member universities’ organisational management styles are varied. The first
reason is that before being amalgamated into the case institution, the three big
universities (1, 2 and 3) had had their own development and operation histories,
128
as well as their own organisational cultures. Second, as the member universities
are granted a certain level of autonomy (Document 9, Appendix 4), and their
operations are affected by different contextual factors, they have established
different management styles.
The initial analysis of the interview data with the universities’ leaders and middle
managers partly revealed management patterns. The table below shows the theory
or combined theories that underlie each university’s management system. The
findings presented in the subsequent sections of this chapter highlight this
categorisation. The table below shows the theory or combined theories that
underlie each university’s management system.
Organisational theory
adopted
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6
Organised anarchy
theory
Collegium theory
Bureaucracy theory
Cultural theory
Table 5: Organisational theories underlying the member universities’ management
As outlined in Section 3.1.5 of Chapter 3, the organisational theories underpin the
espousal and enactment of the quality assurance framework that an institution
opts for. In the scenario of the case institution, although the member universities
are strictly tied to the direction and regulations imposed by the MoET and the
umbrella institution, they are autonomous in planning for, and implementing,
their quality assurance plans at their own pace. In doing so, each university takes
into account their available resources and capacity, organisation cultural factors
and other contextually specific factors. This is reflected in their choice of focus on
certain components of the quality assurance framework more than others, while
striving to develop a sustainable internal quality assurance mechanism.
129
It is worth mentioning that there might be other factors that influence the
organisational styles of the case universities, and that specific factors might have
a stronger influence than the others. However, it is beyond the scope of this study
to include such matters. The focus of this research is on how the universities
adopt frameworks and implement their quality assurance, and what the critical
success factors are for a sustainable quality assurance mechanism.
The next section explores the institution’s existing external and internal quality
assurance practices.
6.1.2 External quality assurance policy and requirements for the universities
6.1.2.1 Policy and requirements from the MoET and the institution: adopting the
regional quality assurance framework
Vietnam is one of those countries in the Asia-Pacific region, where the
government has responsibility for some areas of quality assurance, and in this
scenario, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that its quality assurance
practices are aligned with international best practices (APQN, 2008).
As mentioned in the preceding chapter on context, during the first decade of the
twenty-first century, with the expertise from international and regional quality
assurance agencies and networks, and funding from international aid agencies, the
MoET undertook fundamental steps to establish a legal and regulatory framework
for quality assurance in education. This included the creation of a quality
assurance policy-making unit under the ministry (GDETA) and a system of
instruments including sets of standards and criteria, as well as guidelines for
implementation (Pham, 2012). These system level quality assurance
considerations aligned with the Asia-Pacific region higher education quality
assurance framework, with Chiba principles (Document 8, Appendix 4) providing
a commonly agreed reference point for consistency in quality assurance in the
region (Interview 16-M1, p. 1). This is described in more detail in the Figure
below.
130
Figure 8: A framework for higher education quality assurance principles in the Asia-Pacific region, often referred to as Chiba12 principles
Source: APQN, 2008
12 Chiba, Japan, 18 February 2008, workshop under Brisbane Communiqué in conjunction with the APQN annual conference, 35 participants from 17 countries
discuss the establishment of principles applicable to the particular context of quality assurance in higher education in the Asia-Pacific region.
131
In retrospect, quality assurance became a topic of discussion in the Vietnamese
education development agenda in 2000. In the period 2001-2002, the MoET often
referred to quality assurance as educational accreditation, due to the
institutionalisation of accreditation in education. The requirement for public
universities and colleges to be accredited was first put into a legal document in
2001, in Decision No. 47/2001/QD-TTg (MoJ, 2001; Document 6, Appendix 4).
This was issued by the Prime Minister, approving the ‘Planning on the network of
universities and colleges in the 2001-2010 period’. It was reinforced in a
subsequent legal document, Decision No. 121/2007/QD-TTg (MoJ, 2007;
Document 7, Appendix 4) by the Prime Minister, approving the ‘Planning on the
university and college network in the 2006-2020 period’.
From its inception, GDETA functioned as a national accreditation centre, starting
accreditation in 2005 with the top 10 universities. By December 2013, 160
universities nation-wide had completed the first step in the accreditation process,
that is their self-assessment reports based on such criteria as program
specification, teaching and learning strategy, academic staff/support staff/student
quality, staff development activities, stakeholder feedback, etc. (Interview 16-M1,
p. 10). In the period between these two milestones, the MoET and GDETA set up
an accreditation plan for higher education. Accordingly, universities were divided
into 3 groups: (1) those that were almost ready for accreditation; (2) those that
needed a year to prepare for the self-assessment report; and (3) those that needed
two years for the self-assessment report. The universities in groups 2 and 3
needed more time to establish required internal processes and reconstruct the
required evidence for their quality assurance implementation. All the universities
received regular monitoring from GDETA, an initial fund of US$3000 and on-site
expert consultation, to help them prepare their self-assessment reports (Interview
16-M1, p. 9).
It should be noted that although a large number of public universities in Vietnam
have gone through the process of educational accreditation at the institutional
level, only some leading universities, including the case institution, have
132
completed the second cycle accreditation at the institutional level and the first
cycle of accreditation at the program level (Document 1, Appendix 5).
Although there had been criticism about the fact that Vietnam did not have
independent accreditation agencies (Adams et al., 2012b; Lam & Vu, 2012), the
MoET and GDETA actually adopted a viable approach for a developing country
with no experience in quality assurance, while having a limited budget for
educational assessment, and a centralised top-down education system. The MoET
and GDETA began the process when there was no local independent agency
capable of taking on this huge task. They underwent an experiential learning
process, implementing accreditation while establishing the needed legal
framework, developing required human resources, and accumulating experience.
When everything was ready, they transferred responsibilities to independent
agencies.
Since 2013, GDETA has discontinued its accreditation function, and shifted to its
policy-making function. To prepare for the independent accreditation agencies,
two centres for education and accreditation were established, attached to the case
institution and the regional university in the south of Vietnam. They were in the
expected transitional period of 5 years, operating on funding from the state and
the accreditation fees from the universities, having support from the host
institutions in terms of facilities, human resource and activities, before they can
function independently (Interview 16-M1, p. 12).
As a system level policy-making unit, although GDETA asserts that the focus is
on improvement, rather than accountability (Interview 16-M1, p. 8), on their part,
they can only use accreditation as a dual purpose instrument. One purpose is for
the top universities that are confident in being accredited. The other is for lower-
ranked universities to identify their current quality status and develop
improvement plans accordingly. GDETA is aware of the fact that they can
provide universities with the legal framework, impose the quality assurance
model, and develop relevant policies and procedures for external quality
assurance (accreditation implemented as a prominent activity, as outlined above).
133
However, it is the responsibility of the universities to develop their internal
quality assurance system, following Chiba principles (Interview 16-M1, p. 7).
In this regard, it appears that public universities, in meeting MoET and GDETA’s
requirements, are ‘not willing [to undertake accreditation] and just do it because
they have to’, despite having little experience in systematic quality assurance and
limited budgets for quality assurance, especially ‘no quality improvement
funding’ (Interview 16-M1, p. 6). As noted by Nguyen, Oliver and colleagues
(2009) and Lam and Vu (2012), Vietnamese universities still focus on compliance
rather than internal quality improvement. That is, they are investing more
resources and efforts into immediate need areas in order to meet external
assessment or accreditation requirements (e.g. buy more books and facilities for
the libraries, or modernise some classrooms with LCD projectors, in order to meet
the criteria for facilities and structure) rather than into longer-term internal
improvements (e.g. providing regular library training sessions for new students so
that they can use the resources). In his interview for this study, the policy-maker
from GDETA even admitted that many universities are used to accreditation but
‘ignorant’ of quality assurance, especially internal quality assurance (Interview
16-M1, p. 8). That said, many universities associate accreditation with quality
assurance. For example, they manage to meet the required accreditation criteria
(in program structure and content, student assessment, and output) but do not
establish a formal quality assurance system, do not conduct regular curriculum
review or enhance the quality of student support services.
6.1.2.2 Accreditation profile of the case institution
As one of the flagship regional universities in Vietnam, and one of the two
universities designated by the MoET to host a centre for education and
accreditation- the institute for education quality assurance (INFEQA), the case
institution is expected to translate the system level quality assurance policy into
institution level enactments.
134
In their operationalisation of quality assurance, evidently, the case institution has
surpassed the expectation of the MoET, and gradually become autonomous in its
quality assurance. Specifically, the institution registered for regional accreditation
at the program level (bachelor or master programs) through the AUN, developed
its own set of standards and criteria based on the one imposed by the MoET
(hereinafter referred to as the old set) (Document 2, Appendix 4), then integrated
AUN standards and criteria into this old set to issue a new set (hereinafter referred
to as the new set) (Document 3, Appendix 4). Both sets are used for their internal
assessment.
According to the latest statistics from INFEQA, all six member universities under
the case institution have completed two cycles of external accreditation. The first
cycle was implemented during 2007 and 2008, based on the old set of standards.
The second cycle was conducted during 2012 and 2013, based on the new set. . At
the program level, from 2009 to 2012, six programs were internally assessed,
based on the old set; in 2013 two programs were internally assessed, based on the
new set; in 2014, five programs were internally assessed by other member
universities. Notably, from 2009 to 2014, eleven programs were regionally
accredited by AUN and one program was accredited by the German Academic
Exchange Service- DAAD (Document 1, Appendix 4). Given that there are a total
of 108 programs in the whole institution, and that some of the above mentioned
programs were both nationally and regionally accredited, the number of programs
accredited is still very limited.
It seems to be a common scenario among the public universities participating in
the quality initiative, that in the first stage they are required to comply with the
MoET’s requirements for institutional and program level accreditation. One
desirable outcome would be that the universities could raise awareness of
continuous improvement through this course of action, and develop their internal
quality assurance mechanism to make quality assurance sustainable. The analysis
of findings in the coming sections provides further detail on this.
135
6.1.3 The internal quality assurance system and arrangements within the
institution
6.1.3.1 The institutional quality assurance system
Structure
Since its first accreditation experience in 2005, the case institution has engaged in
a substantial amount of quality related work, and accordingly developed its
quality assurance system. Structurally, this system has two levels: the institutional
level and the member unit level. At the institutional level, there is one quality
assurance council, in charge of monitoring and guiding the quality assurance
activities of the member universities and affiliated schools and centres, to ensure
consistency. The members of the quality assurance council include external
stakeholders from the MoET, research institutes and national education fund;
leaders of the constituent universities; and leaders of INFEQA. The council meets
biannually and these meetings are for policy-making, decision-making, as well as
planning for quality assurance activities (Interview 09-M2, p. 1).
At the member unit level, each university has a quality assurance centre or quality
assurance is integrated into a centre with inspection or assessment. For example,
universities 2, 3, 4 and 6 have quality assurance centres; university 1 has a centre
for quality assurance and inspection; and university 5 has a quality assurance and
assessment centre (Interviews 06, 24, 04, 05, 25 and 07). The main functions of
these quality assurance centres include providing consultation for the governing
board; and coordinating external assessment activities, such as accreditation of
programs, and internal assessment activities, such as student evaluations of
teaching, curriculum and support services (Interviews 06, 24, 04, 25, 07).
Under the institution, the INFEQA is in charge of coordinating for external
accreditation and assessment. Apart from that, the INFEQA helps with the
promulgation of a quality culture in all the affiliated universities through
periodical assessment of the quality of teaching, as well as the quality of
academic staff and support services. The INFEQA is in charge of setting up
136
procedures, designing templates and questionnaires for these assessment, as well
as providing consultation and training where needed (Interview 09-M2, p. 1).
Current concerns
As revealed in the interviews with the university policy-makers, there have been
concerns about the operations of the current quality assurance system in the case
institution. On the positive side of the quality picture, the bi-annual meetings of
the quality assurance council provide opportunities for ‘inter-university
cooperation, sharing experiences and resolving difficulties and problems in
quality assurance’(Interview 09-M2, p. 9). Another good practice is that external
stakeholders from relevant departments in the MoET, research institutes,
embassies and funding organisations, are engaged in developing policies and
making decisions regarding the set of standards and criteria, or the system of
regulatory documents (Interview 09-M2, p. 6). The third good practice is planning
for quality assurance. While the institution imposes directions for what areas to
maintain or improve, and targets how many programs should be accredited, the
member universities can propose their own plan, based on their actual capacity
and budget (Interview 09-M2, p. 9).
However, as indicated, there is a negative side to the quality picture. First,
university leaders are those who have the most powerful voice in quality
assurance enactment, but they do not consider quality assurance an important part
of institutional operations. As one interviewee put it, for leaders ‘quality
assurance is like spices to the main dish’ (Interview 09-M2, p. 6). Consequently,
the investment of effort, time and budget into quality assurance practices is seen
as less than desirable. Second, respondents are concerned about the adequacy of
the quantity and capacity of the staff in the university quality assurance centres to
cover all quality assurance aspects. Understandably, they might only focus on the
administrative aspects of quality assurance (e.g. circulating information on
coming accreditations or merging parts of the self-assessment reports), leaving
the academic aspects (e.g. developing criteria and standards for teacher
professional development programs) for faculties (Interviews 26, 27, 12, 20).
137
In the next section of this chapter, I investigate quality assurance implementation
at the member universities and triangulate the above findings.
6.1.3.2 Internal assessment activities already in place
The interviews with both policy-makers and policy-implementers at the member
universities, and the study of their websites, revealed that the following internal
assessment activities were already in place:
Periodical review of curriculum, annual review of course syllabuses: these
academic activities are conducted across the institution, based on common
criteria.
Staff performance evaluation: this is conducted once a year, across the
institution, based on common criteria, in three main areas -
teaching/workload completion, professional development, and research
outputs. A reward/punishment mechanism is in place.
Student evaluations of teaching, curriculum and support
services/facilities: this is conducted twice a year, across the institution,
based on procedures and templates suggested at the institutional level,
with the university’s adaptation if needed. The results of the evaluation are
compiled by the quality assurance centres and sent to relevant
faculties/departments for their follow-up.
Staff evaluation on the performance of their university administrative
departments: this has been conducted in university 1 and university 4.
Staff evaluation of their management board: This is conducted once a
year, across the institution.
Inspection of teaching and learning: this is conducted throughout the year,
by the designated inspectors, across the institution, normally without prior
notice. The results are used for staff performance evaluation.
The above internal assessment activities align closely with the Chiba principles
for internal quality assurance. At the espoused level, the procedures and
138
instruments for assessment are inherent (i.e. they are imposed on the case
universities from either the MoET or the umbrella institution).
In the next section, I examine how these activities fit into the quality assurance
framework of the member universities.
6.2 The current quality assurance implementation at the universities
In the preceding section, an overview of the institution under investigation, and its
external and internal quality assurance has been provided. In this section, the
emerging themes from the interview data are reported, revealing how the member
universities are conducting their quality assurance (i.e. how the universities are
enacting the imposed framework and building their internal quality assurance
system, taking into account the inherent capacity and available resources). The
framework for investigation, as described in the literature review in Chapter 3, is
used for guiding the analysis.
6.2.1 Key components of the universities’ quality assurance frameworks
6.2.1.1 Quality assurance focus: accountability or improvement?
A study of their quality assurance documents shows that the six member
universities have, more or less, gained certain achievements in their external
quality assurance. This is reflected in the completion of two cyclical
accreditations at the institutional level, and the number of programs that have
been regionally, nationally or institutionally accredited. These are shown in the
table below. It should be noted that although the number of programs accredited
only accounts for approximately 23% of the total number of programs on offer
institution-wide, as claimed by one policy-maker from university 2, the institution
is the first public institution in Vietnam to have participated in program level
accreditation, by various sets of standards and criteria (Interview 07-PM1).
139
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6
Quality assurance
commencement
2007 2005 2005 2007 2004 2006
1st cycle of
institutionally
accredited university
2008 2007 2007 2008 2007 2008
2nd cycle of
institutionally
accredited university
2013 2012 2012 2013 2012 2013
Number of programs
regionally accredited
(AUN)
3 1 2 3 2 0
Number of programs
nationally accredited
0 0 1 0 0 0
Number of programs
institutionally
accredited
1 2 6 2 1 1
Other quality
certification
MoET
accredited
university
in 2005
ISO900113
in 2009
Table 6: Overview of the member universities’ quality assurance profiles up to the end of
2014
Source: Document 1(Appendix 4)
The quality assurance system in place at the universities
Since the institution participated in the quality assurance initiative generated by
the ministry in 2005, its member universities have endeavoured to meet the
external MoET and institution requirements. At the same time, the institution has
invested effort, time and resources in developing their internal quality assurance
systems. Unlike many public university leaders who are ignorant of [internal]
quality assurance, as highlighted earlier in this chapter, the interviewed leaders of
the universities under study appear to be aware of the importance of a strong
internal quality assurance system. For example, an interviewed leader from
university 3 asserted: ‘we have a comprehensive quality assurance mechanism
comprising of three levels: the university quality assurance council; managers of
13 ISO 9001 belongs to the ISO 9000 family of quality management systems standards, designed
to help organisations ensure that they meet the needs of customers and other stakeholders while
meeting statutory and regulatory requirements related to a product.
140
the functional departments in charge of ensuring quality of academic, research
and other aspects of operation; and the quality assurance implementers at
academic faculties’ (Interview 06-PM1). An interviewed leader from university 5
shared a similar view: ‘we are the first university in the institution that has a
quality assurance centre, and probably the first university in Vietnam that applied
CDIO [Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate]14 approach in curriculum
development … quality assurance has always accompanied all our operations’
(Interview 15-PM1).
There is consistency in the policy-makers’ positive perceptions on the
establishment and operation of the quality assurance centres and systems. A
policy-making leader from university 2 claimed that ‘the quality assurance centre
acts as a bridge, providing the governing board with consultation on which
aspects need focus, while monitoring and supporting the academic faculties to
achieve their quality improvement objectives’ (Interview 07-PM1). Another
policy-making leader from university 1 viewed the quality assurance centre in his
university as a contact point operating in collaboration with other functioning
units and requiring system-wide cooperation (Interview 5-PM1)
From the perspective of the executive leaders who implement policies, however,
there are still concerns over the size, duties and capacity of the quality centres and
their staff. For example, an executive leader from university 6 said that ‘we have
a small size quality assurance centre but its functions and duties have not been
clearly defined’ (Interview 14-PI1). An executive leader from university 3 also
complained: ‘the role of the quality assurance centre in the university is still
blurred, not widely known by staff in the campus. They mainly act as
coordinators or “class monitors” in charge of collecting evidence, saving evidence
and presenting evidence. They haven’t activated their role as quality assurance
experts (Interview 03- PI2).
14 CDIO: Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate is an innovative educational framework for
curricular planning and outcome-based assessment, collaboratively developed in 2000 by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and three Swedish universities, now applied by many
universities world-wide. Source: Wikipedia
141
As briefly described in Section 6.1.3.1 above, the quantity and capacity of
university quality assurance staff are still limited. Nevertheless, it is
understandable that the existence of the quality assurance centre and the line
personnel in charge of quality assurance in functional departments and academic
faculties only form the “hardware” of the quality assurance body. The “software”
required for it to operate to good effect comes from the enactment of the adopted
quality assurance framework and the interaction and collaboration of all actors
involved.
Accountability vs. improvement
As the interviewed policy-maker from the MoET highlighted, top Vietnamese
public universities were led through a learning by doing process; from
accreditation to awareness-raising of the need to improve educational quality, to
building their own internal quality assurance. This scenario seems to be true with
the case institution.
One emerging theme from the interview data with both policy-making and
executive leaders was that accountability comes first as a necessary condition, and
internal improvement comes next as a sufficient condition for good quality
assurance practice. In this regard, one university 2 leader noted that ‘external
quality assurance requirements are actually opportunities for us to identify our
current strengths and weaknesses, in order to plan for improvement, such as
changing direction, renovating the curriculum or changing teaching
methodologies’ (Interview 07-PM1). Similarly, one university 3 executive leader
recalled her experience that ‘in the process of preparing a self-assessment report
for AUN accreditation, we were requested by the governing board to identify our
improvement need areas, for example one weakness of our fast-track program
was the lack of teachers’ research capacity, then one objective in our action plan
would be strengthening research capacity’ (Interview 01-PI1).
142
Accountability requirements facilitate the development of the universities’
internal quality assurance. This is reflected in the following views and
experiences:
We take the AUN and the institution’s sets of standards and criteria for
program accreditation as the state-of-the-art for our quality assurance of
bachelor programs. (U4 leader, interview 21-PM2)
In the past we just tried to do better than ourselves, but now we have clear
and transparent criteria of quality work, as a framework of reference. (U6
leader, interview 10-PM2)
We now have our own set of standards and requirements for quality
teaching/teachers in terms of qualifications, methodology innovation,
publishing; and for quality programs - curriculum development and
renovation. (U5 leader, interview 18-PI1)
After five years with two cycles of external quality assurance, it can be said
that our university simultaneously attend to external assessment and internal
quality improvement, towards the ultimate goal of improving the educational
quality. (U4 leader, interview 24-PM1)
In the process of developing their internal quality assurance mechanism, some of
the member universities address both the administrative and academic aspects of
their operations. As stated by an executive leader from university 1:
In the beginning, I think quality assurance in my university focused on the
administrative aspect, for example, the set of regulations that teachers and
researchers had to follow. Recently, the focus has been shifted to
development of the core part - the academic team, for example sending
teachers and researchers to short-term and long-term higher education, or to
collaborative research projects at overseas universities. (U1 leader, interview
11-PI2)
Another executive leader from university 6 also advised that ‘our leaders care
about building a professional environment in which each individual is proactive
in getting updated, and improvement activities in human resource development
and program renovation are regularly conducted’ (Interview 14-PI1).
On one hand, it seems that the power tension between accountability and
improvement (Brennan & Shah, 2000b; Harvey & Newton, 2007) is satisfactorily
addressed in most of the member universities. On the other hand, one cannot
overlook the issue that there is an incompatibility between reality and desirable
143
outcome (as reflected by some executive leaders from universities 1, 2 and 3).
Specifically, accountability creates pressure for internal improvement while the
available resources are perceived as not adequate for implementing the changes.
The staff at the policy enactment level seem to be ‘driven into fast-speed changes
and this hot development would lead to quality improvement, however, the push-
to-ripe banana is not as tasty as the naturally ripe one15’ (Interview 3-PI2). Similar
contextual factors affecting the implementation of quality assurance in the case
universities are dealt with in more detail in the following sections.
Many interviewed leaders consistently perceived that in the long-run,
accountability will become the inevitable result of internal improvement
(Interviews 15-U5, 10-U6, 06-U3, 21-U4). These leaders believed that the shift in
focus between accountability and improvement would depend on timing and the
requirements of the MoET. In the first place, they learned to practise quality
assurance by responding to external quality assurance requirements, such as
program accreditation. During this experiential learning process, their quality
assurance awareness was increased. Then they took the initiative to address their
internal quality improvement needs. The belief of one policy-making leader from
university 5 that ‘when we are strong inside, the outsiders will acknowledge our
strengths’ (Interview 15-PM1), is echoed by some other leaders (Interviews 10,
06, 21).
6.2.1.2 Leadership and management: dimension(s) of leadership in place?
The university leaders at the policy-making and executive levels, shared their
real-life experiences (their actions in quality assurance) and also their insights and
perceptions on the roles of leaders in the universities’ quality assurance. Their
actions and perceptions were analysed in light of Middlehurst’s (1997)
framework. This suggests that there are three dimensions of institutional
leadership that influence quality assurance practices, namely: the conceptual and
analytical dimension; the structural and systematic dimension; and the
15 Colloquial Vietnamese, meaning that it requires time and necessary resources for any change to
take place and to produce good outcomes.
144
motivational and behavioural dimension. Interviewed leaders’ perceived
dimensions were therefore coded to correspond to these three dimensions, plus
any code emerging from the data.
Conceptual and analytical dimension of leadership
Many policy-making leaders shared perceptions and leadership actions that fall
into the conceptual and analytical dimension. For example, one leader from
university 6 perceived a leader’s vision as one condition for improving
educational quality of the university. He noted, ‘we have Vision 2030 when the
enrolment will be 3000, not 300 as the present, together with strategic goals and
periodical development planning. If we don’t get well-prepared by enhancing
internal quality, we may not realise that vision’ (Interview 4-PM1). Another
leader from university 4 highlighted the importance of leaders having a clear
vision and consistently communicating that vision to all staff. He said:
all the heads of the units need to be well aware of this [vision] and share the
[leaders’] compassion, the determination and support this. Then the people
who implement the quality assurance activities - teachers, researchers, lab
members, admin staff - all these people need to be communicated on the
policy as well as the quality assurance plan. (Interview 21-PM2)
As a result, staff awareness of quality assurance is raised through a shared vision
and goals. This was echoed by a leader from university 2 (Interview 17- PM2).
In three universities 1, 4 and 5, the policy-making leaders were able to articulate
clearly their strategic visions (Interviews 05-PM1, 24-PM1, 25-PM2).
Accordingly, university 1 is to become a research-based university with their
strongest faculty reaching international standards; university 4 aims to have their
programs accredited by international agencies; and university 5 sets their quality
bar higher than the demand of the current market, in other words, approaching
international quality standards. Relatedly, one university 5 leader shared his
perception that ‘education is a type of commodity, and quality is only in place
when the demand for that commodity is set high’ and that ‘setting a high standard
helps ensure quality in everything we do’ (Interview 18-PM1).
145
Related to this conceptual and analytical dimension and according to some
executive leaders, the policy-making leaders play a decisive role in what direction
the university will take. These interviewed executive leaders perceived that their
policy-making leaders’ clear and well-communicated orientation had a positive
impact on staff awareness raising, and of the need to improve quality towards the
institutional goals (Interviews 22-PI2, 13-PI2, 14-PI1, 12-PI1).
Structural and systematic dimension of leadership
Reflecting the structural and systematic dimension of leadership in quality
assurance, many interviewed leaders claimed their direct engagement in the
planning and setting of structures for institutional as well as staff performance
improvement. One executive leader from university 5 said that ‘we [executive
leaders] are in charge of developing strategic plans from the faculty level
upwards, then we will negotiate with the governing board on targets and focal
missions for the academic year, they [the governing board] make sure the
faculties get enough pressure’ (Interview 18-PI1). Similarly, one policy-making
leader from university 3 shared his experience in applying a log frame matrix in
strategic planning at all levels of his university (a systematic, visual approach to
designing, executing and assessing projects that considers the relationships
between available resources, planned activities, and desired changes) . He said,
‘log frame planning helps us monitor our process and verify our outcomes at
specific timing’ (Interview 06-PM1). Recalling the recent curriculum renovation
project in his university, another leader from university 3 acknowledged that ‘I
highly appreciate the governing board leaders, they act as they speak, they set
deadlines, participate in appraisal committees, provide critical feedback, and
supervise follow-up improvement plans’ (Interview 27-PM2).
Regarding another aspect of this leadership dimension, there is a consistency in
the leaders’ engagement in identifying stakeholders and searching for partnership
and collaborative opportunities. For example, an executive leader from university
5 stated that ‘the governing board are pioneers in searching for research partners
and collaborative projects for the university and contributing to the development
146
of research centres’ (Interview 19-PI2). One policy-making leader from university
2 shared similar experiences in his university and asserted that ‘our leaders [the
governing board] are also high profile researchers and therefore they create
enabling conditions for research development’ (Interview 07-PM1). In this vein,
two leaders from university 4 reported on their engagement in identifying
prospective stakeholders who could partner with their universities in several
projects (Interviews 21-PM2, 23-PI2).
One policy-making leader from university 6 recalled the fundamental changes
that they had conducted, that positively impacted on education quality, including:
increasing self-study and student research and providing smaller size classes
for more practice, thus improving the students’ teaching quality during
placement at school … [and] recruiting students with personality traits
suitable for teaching jobs from year 1 through to year 3, and offering credit-
based non-prerequisite courses as general psychology/ pedagogy to year 1
students, thus improving the quality of the student intakes. (Interview 4-
PM1)
Motivational and behavioural dimension of leadership
One emerging theme from the interview data aligns with the motivational and
behavioural leadership dimension. Many interviewed leaders stated that they
either directly granted or acknowledged the positive impact of the leaders’ efforts
and investment in creating an engaging environment based on partnership and
mutual trust. At the espousal level of quality assurance, they ‘communicated the
institutional strategic plans, including the quality assurance component, via all
possible channels’ (Interview 17-PM2) and ‘involved multi layers of
leaders/managers in planning’ (Interview 21-PM2). At the enactment level of
quality assurance, they ‘provided necessary resources’ (Interview 15-PM1) and
‘created professional development opportunities for everyone’ (Interview 26-PI1).
Many leaders consistently perceived that leaders’ direct engagement in and
dissemination of good practices actually motivated staff and raised staff
awareness of changing good habits or detailed quality actions into a sustainable
quality culture (Interviews 6-PM1, 18-PI1, 23-PI2, 24-PM1).
147
Apart from the three main themes- the three leadership dimension, some themes
emerged from the interview data. The positive views of university leadership
relate to the leaders’ own actions. Accordingly, those leaders who directly
engaged themselves in quality assurance initiatives, attended to detailed quality
actions, or demonstrated strong commitment to quality assurance, were perceived
by their subordinates as having a positive impact on raising quality improvement
awareness (Interviews 27-PM2, 08-PM2, 14-PI1, 15-PM1).
The negative views of the interviewed leaders related to conventional top-down
leadership or culturally affected leadership and its negative impact on institutional
quality assurance. One executive leader from university 1 noticed that the top-
down leadership in her university seemed not to work well as ‘the academic staff
are scientists, so when they are not happy with the policies, they perform the tasks
for the sake of fulfilling the requirement, instead of resisting [against those
policies]’ (Interview 12-PI1). This leader elaborated her point, saying, ‘at the
moment, we [at the faculty level] try to fulfil the quality assurance requirements
as written on documents, however the direct engagement of policy-makers is not
obvious’ (Interview 12-PI1). A leader from university 2 also shared similar
observations, saying, ‘there is no clear connection between the quality assurance
plan and the university’s strategic 5-year plan’ (Interview 20-PI1).
As to culturally-affected leadership, one leader from university 3 asserted that:
In Vietnam there is a lack of critical view towards leadership. Leaders in my
university are “know-all” people as they have access to important
information. As they are leaders and they know everything, people just
follow, whether towards the right direction or not. Therefore, if leaders go
off-track or have poor supervision, quality will be like a train running
downhill without control and the quality of a whole program may be under
no one’s control. We had experience of having a vice dean for academic
affairs, who failed to address conflicts over the contents of the renewed
curriculum. That’s why there are still some academic courses that we should
question the quality, although the stamp “accredited” has been sealed.
(Interview 27-PM2)
This view was shared by some other leaders from university 4 (Interview 26-PI1),
from university 1 (Interview 12-PI1), and from university 2 (Interview 20-PI1).
148
6.2.1.3 A culture of continuous quality improvement: what type of quality culture
is in place?
The emerging themes from the interview data reflected two codes: the conditions
for a sustainable quality culture (The European Universities Association, 2006;
Harvey & Stensaker, 2008; Yorke, 2000; Gordon, 2002; Boaden & Dale, 1992);
and the types of quality culture (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008) evident at the
member universities.
Conditions for a sustainable quality culture
Data analysis identified that all five elements forming the condition for a
sustainable quality culture were evident in the case institution. However, not all of
these elements were found at all the member universities. Therefore, the
differences are discussed further, as are the implications in terms of strengthening
their quality culture. In the following section, significant themes are presented,
illustrating these five elements.
Shared values, beliefs and expectations
First, all of the interviewed leaders at the institutional level agreed on the
importance of building and sustaining a quality culture if the universities choose
to improve internally. In the three universities with the longer history of
development (universities 1, 2 and 3), the majority of interviewees confirmed that
a quality culture had been well-established in their universities, even before the
quality assurance policy had been introduced. Continuous quality improvement
has been an inherent trait of their organisational culture. It is the tradition and
shared value of these flagship universities that teaching/learning/research quality
can be enhanced through inventing new technologies, renovating the curriculum,
offering new programs, and advancing collaborative research projects with
national and international institutions (Interviews 05, 08, 12, 11 from U1;
Interviews 07, 20 from U2; Interviews 06, 03, 27 from U3). Examples of shared
values include university 2’s belief that ‘everyone self-improve and self-upgrade
their level’ (Interview 20-PI1, p. 10); university 1’s ‘every teacher should be a
149
bright example on self-study and self-creation’ (Interview 08-PM2, p. 6); or
university 3’s ‘towards professionalism and friendliness’ (Interview 06-PM1, p.
8). Shared values, beliefs and expectations and certainly evident in these
universities.
Awareness and commitment of all levels
The next element to sustain quality culture is staff awareness of the need to
develop a quality culture. This was evident in all the member universities, but at
different levels. According to the majority of interviewed leaders, staff awareness
and its positive consequence – a commitment to quality and quality improvement
- manifested in the ‘specific quality actions’ of staff (Interview 06-PM1, p. 3); in
‘the way their work is smoothly conducted, in the comfortable inter-personal
interaction’ (Interview 15-PM1, p. 9); and in the fact that ‘improving quality in
teaching and research became an intrinsic motivation, and quality actions became
routinised’ (Interview 8-PM2, p. 5). These leaders shared the perception that
quality is not something abstract. Regular quality actions mean doing things right,
sharing and learning from each other (Interviews 10-PM2, 15-PM1, 06-PM1, 12-
PI1); and quality culture can be translated as professionalism and responsibility
(Interviews 06-PM1, 07-PM1, 15-PM1, 04-PM1, 05-PM1). Leaders consistently
believed that only when the culture of self-improvement is individually
internalised and quality actions become common practice, can the quality of
teaching, research and services of the whole faculty or the whole university be
sustainably enhanced. These leaders’ viewpoints appear to be consistent with
those of Barnett (1992), Harvey and Knight (1996), and Harvey and Stensaker
(2008).
It should be noted that awareness raising is difficult to measure as it relates to
people’s minds, and often, is easier said than done. On reflecting on awareness
raising in their universities, some leaders observed certain obstacles. A policy-
making leader from university 6 expressed his concern: ‘It is difficult to develop
quality culture when people’s knowledge, attitude and democracy levels are not
high enough. When the staff still complete their work just to stay on the pay-roll,
150
it would be very difficult to change their attitude and raise their awareness’
(Interview 04-PM1, p. 12). One leader from university 2 complained that ‘for
seniors with over 30 years’ experience, awareness raising needs to be done
tactfully’ (Interview 07-PM1, p. 11). A leader from university 5 also said ‘it’s
dangerous when a part of the staff think that because their salaries are low, they
just do their job at the satisfactory level, no need to improve’ (Interview 15-PM1,
p. 7). Two leaders from universities 1 and 3 both critically admitted that not all in
their universities are committed to quality culture and that the awareness and
commitment at the grassroots level appear to be less than desired (Interview 06-
PM1, Interview 05-PM1).
Due to the scope of this study, as outlined in Chapter 4, interviews were not
conducted with teachers or administrative staff. Therefore, the researcher could
not include their perspectives on leadership commitment to quality culture from
the enactment level. However, the data analysis indicated that the commitment of
leadership and management through quality thinking at the espoused level is
evident in all the member universities.
Transparent internal processes and a reward/punishment mechanism
Apart from the above elements, the emerging data from the interviews also shows
that the case universities used their internal processes to scaffold the development
and reinforcement of the quality culture. Many interviewed leaders shared their
perception as well as experience in this process. For example, one leader from
university 6 said ‘friendly-user guidelines and evidence- based task performance
help build up quality culture’ (Interview 10-PM2, p. 6). Another leader from the
same university also stated that ‘quality culture needs pushing in the beginning,
with an evidence-based mechanism, and accompanying regulations and internal
processes’ (Interview 14-PI1, p. 4).
One policy-making leader from university 2 claimed that ‘one important measure
to sustain quality culture is using a transparent reward/punishment mechanism to
encourage good practices and self-responsibility towards common work’
151
(Interview 7-PM1, p. 11). In the same vein, one leader from university 1
highlighted that the reward/punishment mechanism in his university used to focus
on administrative aspects. For example, he explained, those teachers caught by
the inspectors for lateness or not following the time-table had their performance
evaluation score reduced, negatively impacting their annual incentive. However,
he continued, his university has recently shifted more attention to the academic
aspect. For example, teachers with excellent research or supervision outcomes are
rewarded and recognised (Interview 08-PM2).
Raising awareness is an ongoing process and once it is successfully done, the
desired outcome would be staff willingness to change and improve. When staff
awareness is not up to the expected level, a set of transparent internal processes
and a fair reward/punishment scheme would help promulgate quality culture.
More detailed findings on the current internal processes in place at the member
universities can be found in section 6.2.1.6 below.
Teamwork based on mutual trust, sharing and openness
As Boaden and Dale (1992) claimed, teamwork is an important feature of all
quality management efforts in general and helps sustain the quality culture.
Data analysis revealed that only in university 6, the smallest university, was the
role of teamwork mentioned. A leader from this university reflected:
The first representation of quality culture in my university is mutual trust and
openness. We consider each other a family. The second representation is
diffusion and sharing. Teachers are willing to share, for example what they
learnt from a recent international conference. Older generations and younger
ones are connected and learn from each other. (Interview 10-PM2, p. 6)
The finding that teamwork as one of the conditions for quality culture, is present
in university 6, while absent in the other universities may be related to the small
size of its faculties, with one faculty in university 6 being the same size as a
division within a faculty in university 3. In the former, staff work more closely
with each other as manageable teams. Another explanation might be that the role
of teamwork in quality culture formation in the bigger universities, is submerged
152
by other more obvious elements, such as well-practiced internal processes or
strong staff commitment.
Types of quality culture evident at the universities
Data analysis against the categories of quality culture in HEIs as informed by the
literature (as discussed in Chapter 3), revealed that the two types - responsive and
regenerative quality culture - prevailed in the case universities.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the case institution and its member
universities began the quality assurance process externally, through accreditation.
In other words, their quality cultures, either inherent before quality assurance was
introduced or in the early stage of formation, were led by external demands (i.e.
that of the MoET). All the member universities adopted the responsive mode,
taking the demands as opportunities to review their practices and explore how to
make compliance requirements and policies beneficial to their internal
improvement.
According to the interviewed leaders from universities 1 to 5, once their quality
awareness and practices were improved, they shifted their focus to internal
improvement while remaining fully aware of external demands. In these
universities, institutional core values were reconceptualised to promote quality
culture, such as the ‘professionalism and friendliness’ values of university 3
(Interview 06-PM1); and the ‘excellence, creation, cooperation and social
responsibility’ of U1 (Interview 05-PM1). In addition, future goals were
reframed, such as the ‘research-based university’ goal of universities 1, 2 and 4
(Interviews 05, 07 and 24 respectively); the ‘first faculty offering international
program’ of university 1 (Interview 08-PM2); or the ‘internationally accredited
programs’ of university 4 (Interview 24-PM1) and university 5 (Interview 15-
PM1). The data show that these universities have adopted the regenerative mode.
Interestingly, the interviewed leaders from all member universities shared their
perception that even when the university-wide quality culture becomes a dynamic
regenerative mode, some faculties, units or groups still perform tasks in reactive
153
or reproductive modes. For example, the product-oriented or achievement-driven
quality assurance practices at university 3 (Interview 27-PM2) and quality
improvement as a result of the introduction of a new reward/punishment scheme
at university 2 (Interview 07-PM1), both reflect the reproductive mode. The lack
of commitment from all staff at university 1 (Interview 05-PM1), and from those
at the grassroots level at university 5 (Interview 15-PM1), indicate little or no
sense of ownership and the adoption of a reactive mode.
The figure below provides a visual summary of the actual representation of all
four categories of quality culture at the case universities.
Figure 9: Quality culture types within the case universities
Other emerging themes
In the experiential learning process of implementing quality assurance, the
universities that had a well-established quality culture (universities 1, 2 and 3)
154
had opportunities to standardise their actions, and turn their intuitive good actions
into systematic practices aligned with the adopted APQN quality assurance
conceptual framework (Interview 20-PI1). This reflective view was shared by a
policy-making leader from university 3:
The culture for quality improvement has become more well-refined,
resulting in an evidence-based culture of working and problem solving. For
example, the documentation of meetings and follow-up plans, the
digitalisation of feedback from students for later usage, the recording of
evidence, become routinised. I think the positive effect of accreditation is the
refinement of the quality culture. For example, in a recent program
accreditation, there was a comment that we overlook feedback on the
curriculum from teachers, students and external stakeholders. Then, in post-
accreditation time, we conducted surveys with all these stakeholders, and
processed their feedback, not putting them on the shelves as before.
(Interview 27-PM2, p. 10)
Data analysis also identified a good number of emerging themes that are worth
consideration.
The first is that ‘although quality culture is in place, is being further reinforced
and becomes more popular among staff, the product-oriented16 quality assurance
still prevails over the process-driven one’ (Interview 27-PM2, p. 11). As
discussed in Chapter 5, this product-oriented approach to quality assurance can be
related to a typical feature of Vietnamese education, including higher education,
which is the obsession with achievement, both of teachers and students. The
policy-making leader from university 3 expressed his concern over this common
practice:
in my university, quality is perceived as high achievement, that’s why people
view that the more committees are established, the more “certified” seals are
stamped, the more accreditation certificates are uploaded on our websites,
the higher the educational quality is. (Interview 27- PM2, p. 8)
This scenario is also found in universities 1, 2 and 4 (Interviews 12, 20, 26).
Sustaining the quality culture would require a process-driven approach (Harvey,
2002), accompanied by careful planning and monitoring.
16 Some interviewees (27, 25, 03) used this term to refer to the quality assurance practice that only
targets one-off accreditation and neglects post-accreditation improvement plans or continuous
improvement needs.
155
Another interesting finding is that professionalism, one feature of quality culture,
in most of the case universities, can be affected by a problem called ‘the
sensitiveness in inter-personal relationships’ (Interview 21-PM2, p. 4). A leader
from university 4 gave examples:
We know about the quality of teaching of some teachers, as revealed in
feedback from students - not following the course syllabus, but we do not
address this. It is not easy to assure teaching quality when students respect
teachers, hence avoid low rating for their teaching, or when teachers neglect
their students, hence giving higher marks. Therefore, the feedback does not
reflect the true situation of teaching and learning. (Interview 21-PM2, p. 4)
This excerpt suggests that because of the tendency to maintain harmony rather
than engage in conflict among managers and teachers/staff, and students
respecting their teachers - two desirable traits of a Confucian culture (see Chapter
4) - people choose to avoid speaking the truth, in order to keep harmonious inter-
personal relationships.
6.2.1.4 Stakeholder engagement
Data analysis identified three main themes under stakeholder engagement: the
groups of stakeholders engaged; the engagement activities; and the barriers to
effective stakeholder engagement.
From the perspectives and experiences of the interviewed leaders, the six member
universities can be divided into two groups: one group adopted an active approach
to engaging stakeholders in their education programs and activities (universities
1, 4 and 5); and the other group adopted a responsive approach to engaging
stakeholders (universities 2, 3 and 6).
Groups of stakeholders engaged and the engagement activities
As for the groups of stakeholders, all four main groups suggested by Srikanthan
and Dalrymple (2003) and Westerheijden et al. (2013) are reported to be involved
in the operations of the universities, but not at the same level and frequency at
each. For convenience in presenting the findings, the two groups, providers of
funding and users of outputs (employers), are referred to as external stakeholders.
156
The two groups, users of products (students) and employees of the sector
(academic and administrative staff), are referred to as internal stakeholders.
As the case institution is a public one, operating on funding from the government
under the direct supervision of the Cabinet, the providers of funding stakeholder
category obviously means government. Specifically, as discussed in Chapter 5,
certain academic aspects, such as the inclusion of compulsory common
ideological subjects, or funding allocation based on the approved enrolment
quota, as well as the personnel requirements for academic and administrative
positions, are under the control of the MoET. In addition, financial disbursement
has to follow national regulations as controlled by the Ministry of Finance
(Document 9, Appendix 5). The engagement of the government as the biggest
funding agency, in all operations of the institution, is inherent and taken for
granted.
In the section that follows, the groups of stakeholders are identified, in connection
with the activities in which they are engaged.
The most typical stakeholder-engagement activity
There is one educational activity in which the engagement of all groups of
stakeholders, other than funders, can be seen across the institution. As required by
the institution, its member universities implemented periodical curriculum
reviews, adopting the CDIO curriculum planning framework developed by MIT
and other universities (2000). During this process, all the member universities
were required to seek feedback on the current curriculum in use from current
employers of graduates, curriculum developing experts, current teachers and
students using the curriculum, and alumni (all interviews except for Interview 16
[Ministry level]).
With reference to this common task, a policy-making leader from university 4
emphasised that:
We make sure that the learning outcomes of our programs match the
expectations and requirements of prospective employers and social demands,
157
by reviewing the curriculum and course syllabus in a cycle of 4 years for
BA, 2 years for MA and 3 years for PhD. We surveyed external stakeholders
and asked for their evaluation of our programs and graduates. (Interview 21-
PM2, p. 7)
An executive leader from the same university confirmed that for the major
revision of the curriculum, after four or five years of implementation, many
surveys would be conducted and processed, together with recommendations from
teachers, the division, and the scientific council (Interview 26-PI1).
An interviewed leader from university 5 stated that
the external stakeholders as scientists, experts in the field of
specialisation, prospective employers were invited to provide detailed
feedback on the curriculum and courses. For some programs, we even
held 20 review seminars. It is important that the project
[curriculum/course review] leader can make decisions on what to
change and what to keep (Interview 18-PI1, p. 10).
Another executive leader from this university confirmed that the curriculum
review was conducted following several stages and involved all related external
and internal stakeholders (Interview 19-PI2).
One interesting finding should be noted. Two executive leaders from university 2
asserted that curriculum review in their university was based on students’ needs
and the accommodating capacity of the academic body. As they put it: ‘it’s not
easy at all to add a new course to the program, we have to wait for prime time for
both supply [teachers’ capacity] and demand [students’ need]’ (Interview 20-PI1,
p. 6); and ‘students’ needs and the developmental trend of society have an impact
on our curriculum’ (Interview 22-PI2, p. 3).
Other stakeholder-engagement activities
In university 4, where stakeholder engagement appears to be the most successful
compared to other member universities, a policy-making leader proudly reported:
We have done good stakeholder engagement, for example, we have received
funding for lab equipment from external source, about 300 to 500 million
158
VND17 per year, they also provided joint research projects, scholarships for
students with excellent contribution to those research projects. We organised
research teams and invited enterprises to join, after they assessed our
proposals and approved, they funded for the research and for labs. The
enterprises cared about practical stuff, they are willing to fund for joint
projects that would bring mutual benefits. They fund for seminars and short-
term training, take our students for internship, provide scholarships and job
offers for our students. (Interview 21-PM2, p. 18)
Other leaders from university 4 asserted that they collaborate with industries and
international organisations in both training and research projects (Interview 24-
PM1); that enterprises provided lab equipment and practice kits for students to
work in labs (Interview 26-PI1); and that some big telecom companies were
invited to give guest talks on transmission software for students (Interview 23-
PI2).
University 5, which was involved in many government consultancy and research
projects, established a network with many big corporations, joint-ventures and
import-export enterprises. Therefore, they could send their students to do
internships in these corporations and enterprises, to acquire practical experience
and learn to problem-solve (Interview 25-PM2). Additionally, the university
invited guest-speakers, such as economic experts, to give guest lectures, seminar
presentations, or deliver course components. This practice ‘helps enhance
practical knowledge for students and thus, the quality of graduates’ (Interview 18-
PI1, p. 9). The engagement of international organisations also brought about more
and more opportunities for students to attend overseas training and conferences.
These chances ‘motivate the students to study and conduct research’ (Interview
19-PI2, p. 5).
The link between university 1 and relevant enterprises is well established and, as
a result, ‘many scholarships and job offers were provided [by these stakeholders]
to the students’ (Interview 8-PM2, p. 20). An executive leader from university 1
stated that in seeking feedback from current employers of their graduates, they
received positive responses, as ‘many organisations approached us to recruit only
the graduates from our faculty. I think it’s an encouraging signal for the assurance
17 Equivalent to US$14,000-US$24,000 at the time of data collection.
159
of outputs that our faculty aims at’ (Interview 12-PI1, p. 6). This executive leader
added that their study of the specific needs of enterprises informed necessary
changes to their courses, such as the integration into course content of projects
and assignments with highly practical and applicable models (Interview 12-PI1).
Similarly, a policy-making leader from university 4 confirmed that feedback and
external stakeholder requirements have a constructive impact on the curriculum or
syllabus choice. This leader critically admitted that ‘many areas are pink in our
eyes, but when assessed by stakeholders, these can be grey, or even black18. We
have to accept that and find ways to improve our program’ (Interview 21-PM2, p.
4). Another executive leader from the same university noted that many teachers in
his faculty participated in part-time projects for big corporations or big research
institutes, and could, therefore, better understand what graduates need in the
world of work. This knowledge, together with feedback from employers,
informed changes to the programs, such as ‘the recent integration of soft-skills to
the curriculum’ (Interview 26-PI1, p. 8), or ‘include an internship module to the
program, not practising in university labs, but in real systems at site’ (Interview
26-PI1 p. 9).
Unlike the universities in the active group that are pro-active at stakeholder
engagement, the universities in the passive group (universities 2, 3 and 6) seemed
to have limited access to, and engagement with, external stakeholders. One
possible explanation is that these universities offer programs on social sciences
and humanity, which are not directly related to business-oriented and resource
industries and enterprises.
University 6’s partners in provincial departments of education and training, and
representatives from schools were invited to graduation thesis defence, so they
could select suitable candidates for their schools (Interview 04-PM1). This
university has a network of satellite schools and experienced teachers within
them. These teachers are regularly invited to teach sample lessons for university 6
18 Vietnamese colloquialism, meaning ‘the areas that we think are very good may be assessed as
bad or “need improving” by the stakeholders’
160
students, to prepare them for their placements at schools (Interview 14-PI1). Also,
the university organised fieldtrips to all the host schools during and at the end of
the placements. The feedback from these schools was processed in a timely
manner to address any issues during placements (Interview 10-PM2) and
informed necessary changes to the educational programs (Interview 13-PI2).
There was consistency in the interviewed university 6 leaders’ positive
perceptions about the engagement of school leaders in assuring placement quality.
Data analysis of the interviews with leaders from universities 2 and 3 does not
indicate any significant engagement activities, with the exception of involving
external stakeholders in curriculum/course reviews.
All of the interviewed leaders admitted that the role of alumni had been
overlooked, and that they had not engaged with this resourceful stakeholder
group.
To some extent (greater in active than passive universities), the engagement of
external stakeholders in several academic operations, while addressing the need
and capacity of internal stakeholders, contributed to the monitoring and
improvement of educational quality. It also helped enhance educational
practicality and students’ transformative learning.
Regarding the involvement of internal stakeholders in quality assurance practices,
there was consistency in all interviewed leaders’ positive perceptions about the
engagement of students in evaluating the teaching-learning process, and in
recommending improvement needs in the curriculum and courses.
In universities 3 and 5, all interviewed leaders confirmed that their teachers were
invited to provide feedback or recommend changes concerning the content,
methodologies and assessment during course or curriculum reviews. There were
no significant findings in the other universities in this regard.
In universities 1 and 4, teachers were surveyed on the performance of supporting
and administrative units (Interviews 05, 24).
161
In all six universities, teachers, staff and students were engaged in the formulation
of internal P&P. However, as some interviewed leaders commented: a) students
were involved only in the formulation of procedures related to their study
(Interviews 11, 14, 21, 17); and b) many staff and teachers did not take the
opportunity to provide serious feedback and often only realised that there were
remaining concerns after the policy or procedures had been approved and come
into effect (Interviews 03, 26, 10, 12, 20).
Due to the scope of this study, the researcher did not interview teachers or
students for their perceptions on how much these engaging activities contributed
to the enhancement of teaching, learning, research and administrative quality, or
to what extent they invested their time and efforts in performing these tasks.
6.2.1.5 Cooperation and collaboration
As discussed in Chapter 3, necessary components of the quality assurance
mechanism in a HEI are cooperation and collaboration among its units of
academic faculties and administrative departments. Individual units are required
to implement its educational provision, to support the implementation of the
institutional plans and policies, in connection and collaboration with other units
(Yorke, 2000; Rhoades, 1998; Sporn, 2007; Bowden & Marton, 1998).
Furthermore, inter-unit collaborative learning enhances the university’s capacity
as a learning organisation (Dill, 1999), which might lessen the competitive
challenges brought about by globalisation and the rapid advancement of
technology. The findings from the interview data show that cooperation and
collaboration among units are in place at the case universities.
Cooperation and coordination between academic faculties and administrative
departments
As Sporn (2007) claimed, cooperation between academic and administrative units
includes support on P&P implementation. Commenting on the current support
granted by academic units to administrative units, and vice versa, the majority of
162
the interviewed leaders shared their positive perceptions and experiences. This is
evident in the following examples:
good cooperation complying with ground rules and evidence-based
processes (U3 Interview 06-PM1, p. 11);
cooperation is efficient because we have trust in our working culture (U6 Interview
10-PM2, p. 9);
systematic cooperation between our faculty and the administrative departments,
following established procedures (U6 Interview 14-PI1, p. 3);
we have ISO [international standardisation organisation] management procedures
and clear job descriptions (JD) for each position, so cooperation has been good
(U1 Interview 08-PM2, p. 9);
we have clear procedures and JDs for each department, the academic faculties have
personnel in charge of each aspect as training, student affairs, research, who liaise
with corresponding admin departments (U4 Interview 24-PM1, p. 5); and
the functional [administrative] departments support [academic units] well (U5
interview 18-PI1, p. 6).
Regarding the problems in inter-unit cooperation, some interviewed leaders
mentioned the incompatibility between academic task implementation and
administrative procedures (Interview 10-PM2); the lack of procedures for
cooperation (Interview 21-PM2); the cumbersome administrative system
(Interview 12-PI1); and the die-hard administrative habits of organising too many
meetings and communicating through official memos (Interview 05-PM1). All
these issues result in delays and slow down the cooperation process.
Some interviewed leaders also raised their concerns about the coordination and
cooperation between the quality assurance centres and other units, in terms of
implementing such quality assurance activities as preparing self-assessment
reports for accreditation, or inspecting the teaching-learning process, or
conducting student evaluations of teaching and learning quality. Some possible
reasons for their concern include the lack of ownership or careful planning on the
side of the quality assurance centres, and the power tension between the quality
163
assurance centres and other units, resulting in passing the “responsibility” ball
(Interviews 27-PM2, 10-PM2, 07-PM1, 26-PI1, 12-PI1).
Collaboration among academic units, and collaborative learning
Between academic units, collaboration includes teaching and learning initiative
sharing, and joint research projects (Sporn, 2007). In this case study, data analysis
identified a broader scheme of collaboration across academic units, as well as
beyond the faculty boundaries.
Interviewed leaders were consistent in their positive perceptions of the
collaborative activities undertaken in their universities. For example, one
university 6 leader listed various types of collaboration in their teacher education
program: ‘integrated teaching that involves teacher-teacher collaboration and
teacher-student collaboration, collaboration between our university and other
member universities, their teachers in charge of contents, our teachers in charge
of teaching methodology’ (Interview 04-PM1, p. 6). All university 3 leaders
shared their collaborative experience in curriculum renovation, demystifying the
CDIO approach on curriculum planning and developing learning outcomes,
sharing expertise and experience in human resource management, developing
internal terms of reference for newly recruited teachers, and professional
development through a mentoring program for young and new teachers
(Interviews 06, 01, 03, 27).
All university 4 and 5 leaders highlighted their collaborative experiences in inter-
disciplinary teaching, inter-faculty joint organisation of national/international
conferences, and inter-university double-major and double-degree programs with
universities 1, 2, 3 and 6 (Interviews 21, 23, 24, 26, 15, 18, 19, 25). One
university 4 leader believed that ‘the double-degree and double-major programs
enable students to better meet the social demands, hence having more chances to
get employed’ (Interview 21-PM2, p. 10).
164
The majority of leaders from all six universities positively viewed collaboration
involving generations of teachers and students. These collaborative activities
include: on the job training of junior teachers by senior teachers, with the juniors
observing the seniors’ lessons and assisting them in paper marking or becoming
substitutes in case of emergency (U6 Interview 04); engaging postgraduate
students in assisting teachers with paper marking, lab supervision, so that teachers
can spare time for research (U1 Interview 12); and training programs for
succeeding resource teachers, including acting as learning advisors to students,
doing tutorials and lab sessions (U4 Interview 26). In universities 2, 3 and 5,
research groups are included as compulsory professional development (PD) for
young teachers. By participating in these groups, young teachers learn from their
senior colleagues ‘how to properly conduct big scale research’ (Interviews 27, 20,
19). One university 2 leader noted the three main advantages of research groups:
‘extra income and research training and practice for young teachers, teamwork
and networking for all participating members, and contributions to teaching -
changes, modification, updates on contents’ (Interview 20-PI1, p. 13).
Another prominent finding under the theme of collaboration and collaborative
learning is that universities could be divided into two groups. The first group
(universities 1, 2, 4 and 5) appeared to be proactive and strong at inter-division,
inter-faculty, inter-disciplinary and inter-institution collaborative research. The
interviewed leaders highlighted a number of such research projects that were
conducted at their universities. Two leaders from university 4 mentioned their
experiences in research and teaching exchanges with three overseas universities:
the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Delft University of Technology and the
University of Paris-Sud (Paris 11). As these leaders perceived, their university
was very strong at exchange programs with international universities and, as a
result, the teaching and research capacity of the academic team was substantially
enhanced (Interviews 24 and 26). According to their leaders, universities 2 and 4
were also pro-active in collaborating with internal partners (other member
universities) and external partners (national flagship universities, national
165
research institutes, relevant ministries, and international research institutes). One
example of collaborative research from university 2 was a research project on the
history of the capital city of Hanoi, which was jointly conducted by a university 2
research team and invited members from the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, and the University of Architecture (Interview 20-PI1). A university
5 leader asserted that collaborative research projects not only enhanced the
capacity of their teachers, but also had a positive impact on education of students,
as teachers could bring the latest research outcomes into their lessons and
continuously improve their courses (Interview 18-PI2).
The second group (universities 3 and 6), in contrast, seemed to have limited inter-
faculty, inter-disciplinary and inter-institution collaborative projects. A leader
from university 3 even complained that ‘the inter-division and inter-faculty
collaboration was not as desired, due to the lack of communication and sharing,
leading to overloading here and overlapping there’ (Interview 03-PI2, p. 5).
Although no inter-disciplinary or inter-institution collaborative research was
mentioned in the interviews with university 3 and 6 leaders, there was evidence
that university 3 conducted joint BA programs with universities 4 and 5, MA
programs with the University of New Hampshire, USA, and exchange programs
with several universities in Japan, Korea, China, France, and Germany (document
10, Appendix 4).
The final finding under the collaboration theme relates to the involvement of
students in joint research projects with their teachers in the two member
universities 4 and 5 (Interviews 23, 19, 26). A leader from university 5 noted that
the teachers often selected research topics relevant to their courses and
encouraged students to assist them in collecting and processing data, or students
were assigned to do a small part of the research (Interview 19-PI2). A leader from
university 4 proudly said that his students sometimes selected new topics, even
new to the teachers, and that promoted their exploratory learning (Interview 23-
PM1).
166
All of this collaborative learning and joint endeavours, to a large extent,
contribute to the enhancement of teaching and research quality and, more
importantly, can bring about a desired outcome of educational quality assurance:
transformative learning for students (Dill, 1999; Harvey & Knight, 2008).
The power tension between institutional units
An emerging theme from the interview data was the power tension between
academic and administrative units. This power tension, as perceived by many
interviewed leaders, was triggered by the difference in perspectives on quality
(evident in the administration area of universities 1, 2, 3 and 4) and affected the
quality culture as well as inter-unit cooperation and collaboration. One executive
leader from university 3 critically commented:
the administrative units mistake their supporting role with controlling role,
and academic staff are deprived of their power, for example a teacher could
be shouted at by a security guard [as staff of an administrative department],
or when teachers go to administrative units it seems that they have to beg for
something. I think the working culture at the administrative departments has
been improved, yet at a slow pace compared to the academic units.
(Interview 03-PI2, p. 20)
Similarly, one executive leader from university 2 also complained about the
‘administrative power’ of the administrative departments in her university, which
impacted on the desired cooperation between the academic and administrative
units (Interview 20-PI1). Another executive leader from university 4 claimed that
there had been little effort among the top leaders to unify the different
perspectives to quality, and redefine the power limits for both sectors. He said
that ‘not just between different generations of teachers, different generations of
administrative staff also hold different quality concepts, and this affects
cooperation’ (Interview 26-PI1, p. 7). One good remedial measure, as perceived
by these leaders, could be the institutionalisation of regulations, documents, and
processes, towards a reinforced quality culture.
167
Sporn (2007) claimed that the power balance between academic faculties and
administration can only be achieved when both groups are accountable, based on
mutually agreed indicators and measures. Most interviewed leaders’ perceptions
and experiences were aligned with this. Examples of this include the
improvement of internal communication through the increased use of ICT
(Interviews 06, 10, 21) and reduced meetings (Interviews 20, 12, 05); or the
refinement of procedures for inter-unit cooperation (Interviews 26, 03, 14).
The power tension was also evident among the academic faculties, as revealed by
a policy-making leader from university 3. He complained:
Recently our university has been assigned with many important projects for
the ministry. The top leaders wanted to promote cooperation among
academic faculties so they provided equal division of project and resource
shares. However, our faculty, being the strongest one, with influential
capacity in the field [assessment and teacher education] should be in the
lead. The equal division of project and resource shares, in this case, leads to
conflicts of interests among the faculties involved. We are the biggest faculty
in size, but not in funding allocation. (Interview 27-PM2, p. 23)
This type of delegation, influenced by a trait of Vietnamese culture - equality for
harmony - might create a sense of favouritism for one faculty over others, and
affect common quality performance in the long-term.
Network organisation
Another emerging theme from the interview data is the role of networking in
inter-unit cooperation. From the network organisation theory perspective
(Bowden & Marton, 1998), a new form of cooperation among units in many
universities (universities 3, 4, 5 and 6) appears to be in formation. This involves
networked cooperation or cooperation being conducted horizontally (e.g. between
faculties or between administrative departments) and vertically (e.g. between
faculties and the university governing bodies) at the same time, rather than just
vertically as in hierarchical governance structures. There are many links between
the units. One interviewed leader from university 6 shared their experience:
In our university, middle managers and even staff can have certain autonomy
and flexibility in approaching and cooperating with other departments
vertically or horizontally. For example, during the scheduling for the new
168
semester, if we encounter any problem relating to classrooms, we can meet
directly the person in charge, or their boss - director of facilities and security.
Of course, it depends on specific cases to decide whether to approach
horizontally or vertically. (Interview 10-PM2, p. 15)
It is still common practice in Vietnamese public universities to have to propose to
the upper (vertical) level in order to get approval before approaching those on
your own level (horizontally). In universities 1 and 2, the units have their own
databases and, in many cases, they only share their resources when directed by
the upper authority (Interviews 12 and 20).
6.2.1.6 Internal processes
As discussed in the literature review, the achievement of a HEI’s strategic goals
requires a robust system of internal policy and procedures (P&P), as well as
indicators and measures for regular performance evaluation in key areas (Shah &
Jarzabkowski, 2013). The emerging findings under the theme ‘Internal processes’
revealed that a system of internal processes is in place at the case universities, yet
at different levels of operation.
The findings in general indicate that all the member universities adopted the core
educational P&P, as imposed by the MoET and the institution, with necessary
adaptation. Furthermore, as depicted in the overview of the case in Section 6.1,
during the first phase of compliance-led quality assurance, all the universities
aimed at getting their P&P right. In the next phase, when the universities shifted
their focus to continuous improvement, their improvement-led quality assurance
aimed at ensuring the P&P were effective and consistently implemented. In this
phase, the member universities, except for university 2, further developed or
refined their internal P&P, and generated their own performance indicators and
accompanying reward/punishment scheme for reinforcement. This process was
conducted bottom-up, engaging with staff and students, with functional
departments and academic faculties developing specific P&P to propose to the
governing board before disseminating them university-wide. The documented
evidence of the P&P confirms the claims of interviewed leaders. The universities’
approach was consistent with previous research on the internal processes
169
dimension of the quality assurance mechanism (Stensaker, 2003; Westerheijden et
al. 2007; Harvey 2002a).
Specifically, regarding the development of internal P&P, university 1 was a
pioneer in conducting evaluation processes. For example, their conduct of student
evaluations of teaching-learning started in 2007, even before this process was
institutionalised (Interview 08). University 3 had ‘a comprehensive set of P&P in
all key areas such as academic affairs, personnel and recruitment, student affairs,
research affairs’ (Interview 06 p. 4). University 4 also had their internal set of
P&P (Interview 21); and university 5 even had an ISO9001certified system
(Interview 15). At the time of data collection, university 6 was still in the process
of finalising their internal code of conduct. Finally, university 2, as mentioned
above, only adopted the P&P imposed by the MoET and the institution, with
contextualised adaptation. It should be noted here that universities 1, 3, 4 and 5
had regionally or internationally accredited programs.
Another key finding is that in the universities that implemented improvement-led
quality assurance initiatives, as perceived by leaders from universities 1, 3, 4 and
5, there was continuous improvement in internal processes. For instance, P&P
relating to staff bonus income were reviewed every year (U5 Interviews 15 & 18);
new P&P on staff rotation were introduced when the under-performing staff had
no improvement after a certain period (U1 Interview 05); new P&P allowed
academic staff to evaluate performance of the administrative departments (U1
Interviews 05 & 08, U4 Interview 24); and internal P&P were revised and
amended every year so that they could better support monitoring and management
(U3 Interview 03). One policy-making leader confirmed these necessary changes,
saying that ‘once we got into trouble during the operationalisation process, we
either fixed the current P&P or developed new ones, also we shared initiatives
and evidence-based procedures among leaders of the member universities, to
avoid reinventing the wheel’ (Interview 06-PM1, p. 14). Actually, these practices
help enhance the universities’ capacity as learning organisations, and the
170
enactment of these P&P is likely to bring about meaningful changes in improving
the quality of educational provision.
One of the major findings is that there were existing problems in the current P&P
implementation at the universities. These include:
the reward/punishment is not fair when the rewards are often given to leaders
and managers. (U2 Interview 07),
the staff performance evaluation is not based on quantifiable indicators such
as KPIs [Key Performance Indicators], rather it is quota-based [each unit is
given a specific quota for outstanding performance individuals], so not fair.
(U4 Interview 21),
the punishment is not strict enough to trigger changes. (U1 Interview 05),
some processes, for example the students’ evaluation of teaching-learning,
are conducted superficially as compliance-led quality assurance, because the
results are not treated radically towards improvement. (U1 Interview 12, U3
Interview 03)
the institution imposed many policies and regulations, then we have internal
P&P at university and even faculty levels. This causes overlapping and thus
administrative pressure for staff (U2 Interview 20, U3 Interview 03, U6
Interview 10), wastes time (U1 Interview 12), and staff become
unresponsive. (U4 Interview 26)
Interestingly, some interviewed leaders shared the perception that there are two
types of internal processes: type 1 is a formality and during implementation may
be distorted due to incompatibility with working conditions or be viewed as
superficial compliance, with staff just filling out forms as required; type 2 is
change-triggering, which might push staff forward, but radical changes take time
and require awareness raising (U2 Interview 20, U4 Interview 26 and U3
Interview 03).
Internal processes for academic affairs
An emerging sub-theme from data analysis relates to the internal processes for
academic affairs. In this key area, there is consistency in the unified procedures
for such activities as curriculum review, course review, program development, in
addition to the inherent procedures relating to educational provisions emanating
from the MoET and the institution. The implementation of these academic
171
procedures, as experienced by the interviewed leaders, was systematic. The
curriculum and course syllabus represent the legal basis for all teachers, and there
are standard procedures, monitoring and performance evaluation measures. The
universities had documented evidence to support the leaders’ claims. They had
documented institution-wide systems, policies and strategies on how, when and
by whom study programs/curriculum would be designed, reviewed, improved and
approved.
However, as many leaders perceived, the lack of uniformity among the member
universities, in such processes as professional development (PD) or human
resource management (HRM), was perceived as a problem. Although there were
inherent MoET and institutional processes , the actual working environment at the
faculty level requires more direct-impact procedures, and it seems that the
academic faculties were given unofficial autonomy to develop such extra
procedures (Interviews 01, 26, 14, 12, 20, 19). In the faculties of universities 1, 3,
4, and 5, which are proactive in quality assurance and have had regionally or
internationally accredited programs, the internal PD and HRM processes were
perceived to have been systematically developed and well-implemented. This
resulted in continuous improvement of the academic team’s teaching and research
capacity.
To sum up, as evident in the leader interviews, internal processes help construct
and reinforce the culture of continuous improvement, need accompanying
reward/punishment schemes, and match well with log-frame planning.
6.2.1.7 Summary: frameworks or models underlying the current quality assurance
practices at the universities
In the preceding sections, I have presented the significant findings and initial
discussion on the current implementation of quality assurance at the case
institution. The findings in general indicate that the development and
implementation of formal quality assurance is a relatively recent practice in the
Vietnamese higher education system. In response to the MoET’s quality
assurance requirements for public universities, the case institution and its member
172
universities have shown their commitment and realisation of this undertaking.
During the last decade, the case institution has demonstrated its capacity to
respond to external quality assurance requirements while endeavouring to
establish a viable internal quality assurance system.
The formal external quality assurance system is analogous with the APQN quality
assessment. Institutional self-assessment, followed by external assessment and
follow-up review of improvement actions taken in light of recommendations
made, is a key feature of the external quality assurance system. In this regard,
there were convergent practices across the member universities. In the first place,
the two determining factors - the centralisation of the educational system and the
leadership of the communist party - as explained in Chapter 4, seemed to leave
the universities under study no other choice but to accept the ministerially-
initiated quality assurance policy. Later on, according to the interviewed leaders,
their universities opportunistically took the challenge to gradually strengthen their
capacity.
However, the member universities did not have the same starting point, in terms
of historical experience, staff profile and capacity, deep-rooted beliefs and
academic values, inherent organisational culture, structures and procedures.
Therefore, they appeared to differ in the levels of investment in effort, time and
resources needed to build their internal quality assurance system. It should be
restated here that they were expected to adopt Chiba principles for internal quality
assurance.
An investigation into the development of internal quality assurance systems in the
case universities, mapped against the existing quality assurance frameworks in the
literature, reveals that the current internal quality assurance practices at the
universities align with the essence of the models TM, CEQAM and HMQME.
This is because a culture of continuous improvement is the driving force of
quality assurance, with accountability as a result; transformation of learning is
advocated; and internal processes provide the conditions for quality improvement.
Moreover, the universities’ endeavours in improving the student learning
173
experience and promoting the dynamic collaboration in education and research, to
a certain extent, reflect the models TM, RUM, ULM and ALOF.
An in-depth review of how the member universities were actually developing and
performing their internal quality assurance practices indicates that, although their
internal quality assurance mechanisms cover all the components of the theoretical
quality assurance framework developed for this study, there were remarkable
differences regarding whether certain components were emphasised more, and
therefore better performed by certain universities. This can be summarised as
follows:
Leadership and management: universities 1, 2 and 3, due to their large
size and relatively cumbersome administrative structures, exercised more
top-down management. It seems that the quality assurance initiatives were
not always well communicated down to the grassroots level. By contrast,
universities 4, 5 and 6, have more manageable sizes and structures, thus
allowing for bottom-up management and multi-directional
communication.
Stakeholder engagement: universities 1, 4 and 5 performed better than
universities 2, 3 and 6 in engaging external stakeholders in the educational
operations and improving the student learning experience. One possible
explanation for this difference is that the latter group focussed on teacher
education (universities 3 and 6) and social sciences (university 2), and it is
more difficult to engage resource businesses and industries in these fields.
Collaboration and collaborative learning: universities 1, 2, 4 and 5 were
stronger at initiating and conducting inter-faculty, inter-disciplinary and
inter-institution collaborative research. Universities 1 and 2 are research
universities and have developed long-lasting networks of research
partners. Universities 4 and 5 have a high-profile staff, including young
graduates from overseas universities; they strongly advocate high quality
in both teaching and research. However, universities 3 and 6 have major
174
disciplines that are more practical than theoretical or research-based. Their
research partner networks are, therefore, limited.
Internal processes: universities 1, 3, 4 and 5 had more systematised
internal P&P, especially those relating to quality assurance of academic
staff, including PD and HRM. This, as mentioned earlier, may be
attributed to their successful experiences in complying to regional and
international accreditation.
Culture of continuous quality improvement: universities 1, 2 and 3 had the
advantage of inherent cultures with quality improvement traditions; the
other universities (universities 4, 5 and 6) had smaller faculties with young
and quality advocates teachers. Because of such variables as differences in
quality culture type, differences in staff quality perceptions, or differences
in the level of staff commitment and awareness across the universities,
there is insufficient information to determine which university(ies) had a
stronger quality culture.
In the subsequent section, I present other discrepancies among the case
universities, providing possible explanations for these in relation to organisational
theories and the three levels of espoused, enacted and experienced.
6.2.2 Possible explanations for the discrepancies in the universities’ quality
assurance practices
6.2.2.1 In light of the organisational theories in higher education
As analysed in the preceding sections, there were differences in intensity in the
universities’ care and investment into certain aspects of internal quality assurance
mechanisms. Let us now view these differences through the lens of the
organisational theories that underlie each university’s management, as briefly
outlined in the overview section of this chapter. Additionally, discussion links to
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame model for examining organisations,
allowing for more spectral arrays within the big picture of the case institution.
175
Bureaucracy - Structural theories
Manning’s (2013) higher education organisational theory of bureaucracy shares
the common essence of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural approach. This
structural frame views organisation as a factory, and ‘emphasises on the
architecture of organisation - the design of units and subunits, rules and roles,
goals and policies’ to get results (Bolman & Deal 2008, p. 21).
Among the universities that adopted a bureaucracy approach (universities 1 to 5),
the three bigger universities (universities 1, 2 and 3) have the advantage of longer
development histories, long-established cultures of healthy competition among
units and sub-units. They also have the disadvantage of cumbersome
administrative systems and more complex coordination across a multitude of
faculties, units and centres. However, commonalities among these five
universities are apparent. First, they all have long-term strategic goals and plans
with quality assurance as one important component. The top leaders demonstrate
their commitment through direct involvement in, and support, for quality actions.
Second, these universities have well-organised systems of academic and
administration units and sub-units, plus supporting units and centres, such as ICT
centres, learning resource centres, and teacher training and assessment centres,
among others. One difference between the bigger university group and the smaller
one is that the latter has smaller size administrative units, with directors
performing dual roles - administrative director and academic staff. As an
interviewed leader from university 5 stated, ‘the directors and deputy directors of
administrative departments were teachers-cum-managers, therefore they were
empathetic with those teachers who had to contact administrative departments and
therefore facilitated the administrative procedures’ (Interview 18-PI1). Finally,
these universities have systematised internal processes and P&P. This is
particularly the case for those with successful experiences with regional and
international accreditation (universities 1, 3, 4 and 5), having developed their
internal processes and procedures for PD and capacity building at sub-unit level.
176
It should be noted here that among these five universities, university 2 adopted
the bureaucracy theory to the least extent. The sections that follow shed light on
this point.
Collegium - Human resource theories
Manning’s (2013) higher education organisational theory of collegium converges
with Bolman and Deal’s (2008) human resource perspective, which views an
organisation as an extended family, and focuses on understanding people and
their individual perspectives. Improving human resource management and
building positive interpersonal and team dynamics are features of this human
resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In the quality assurance literature, as
mentioned in Chapter 1, the academic collegialism approach initiated by Harvey
and Knight (1996), and further developed by Harvey and Newton (2004, 2007)
fits in with this category.
The universities that adopted the collegium theory are universities 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
These universities promote cooperation and collaboration, they themselves are
either highly unified or growing universities. As Bolman and Deal (2008) argued,
the ‘human resource logic fits best’ (p. 318) in such institutions. In light of this
collegium theory, the universities do well in two aspects of the quality assurance
mechanism: stakeholder engagement; and cooperation and collaboration.
One interesting point is that universities 1, 3, 4 and 5 adopted both the
bureaucracy and collegium theories, therefore their human resource approach to
improvement, such as teacher training programs, PD programs and participation
encouragement, tends to work to good effect. According to Bolman and Deal
(2008), the reason for this is that the approach ‘usually needs support from the top
to be successful’ (p. 319).
Again, collaborative research, a strength of university 2 due to the research-based
nature of their programs and their long-established network of research partners,
reflects minimal adoption of the collegium theory in their operationalisation.
Therefore, university 2 is not grouped in this category.
177
Cultural - Symbolic theories
Manning’s (2013) higher education cultural organisational theory has significant
similarities to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) symbolic frame. The symbolic lens sees
an organisation as a temple or a theatre. It focuses on how to shape a culture that
gives purpose and meaning to work. Culture and rituals, beliefs and team spirit lie
at the heart of organisational life (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
In the three bigger and older universities (universities 1, 2 and 3), the adoption of
this theory is perceived as having a positive impact on their quality assurance
implementation. Before their amalgamation into the national institution, these big
universities strived to achieve and maintain their flagship status in Vietnamese
higher education. Aligned with the essence of the cultural theory are several
factors, including: their traditionally high entrance bar for both staff recruitment
and student intake; the loyalty of generations of graduates who stay and work for
the university; the promotion of a tradition of high quality of teaching and
learning; the honouring of heroes and heroines with excellent performance; and
the promulgation of shared vision and values.
In the two universities that adopted both collegium and cultural theories
(universities 1 and 3), the interaction between the two theories results in a
meaningful consensus of staff in implementing quality assurance initiatives.
Collegium theory adoption helps establish unifying teams, while cultural theory
adoption gives them a purpose to work towards. In the case of the old universities,
they have greater historical experience, better staff capacity and norms upon
which reform initiatives and policies are perceived and valued. Therefore, it
requires collegial teams who share not only deep-rooted beliefs and values but
also vision for a prospective future, so that these universities can accept and
implement the reform initiatives and new quality assurance policies with high
staff consensus. As Bolman and Deal (2008) put it, a strong and unifying culture
tends to reduce conflicts and increase homogeneity.
178
One interesting finding from the study regarding the underlying theories of
cultural and collegium is that the university culture, staff unity and staff family-
like attachment to the university were well recognised by leaders across the
member universities. This was perceived as one element that could explain staff
commitment, despite low salaries or sub-standard working conditions. However,
more cultural investigation is needed to provide a clearer explanation for the
different levels of commitment between generations (the old and the young), as
indicated in the earlier sections of this chapter.
Organised anarchy - Political theories
Manning’s (2013) higher education organisational theory of organised anarchy
echoed, to a certain extent, Bolman and Deal’s (2008) political frame. The
political view sees ‘organisations as competitive arenas of scarce resources,
competing interests and struggles for power and advantage’ (Bolman & Deal
2008, p. 21).
Organised anarchy theory only fits with university 2. This university is
particularly affected by environmental change due to its dependence on tuition
and the national economy. Since the introduction of the “doi moi” [innovation]
policy into all aspects of life in Vietnam, requiring universities to change to
survive (as described in Chapter 5), Vietnamese public universities have faced
challenging financial issues. In the case of university 2, their challenge is even
harsher, as many of the disciplines they offer are no longer in high demand. As
revealed by one policy-making leader from university 2, they do not have “hot”
programs to attract students like those offering economic and business [university
5], information technology and engineering [university 4], environmental and
biological technologies [university 1], or foreign languages [university 3].
Consequently, limited income from tuition and the quality of the student intake
are of major concern (Interview 07-PM1).
As Bolman and Deal (2008) claimed, ‘when conflict is high and resource is
scarce, dynamics of conflict, power and self-interest often come to the fore’ (p.
179
318). While recognising their vulnerability in keeping low-demand programs,
university 2 also faces pressure from the government to maintain these disciplines
in order to support the long-term goal of educating a research and training elite. In
other words, university 2 seems to be in a dilemma. Consequently they use a top-
down management approach reflecting bureaucracy theory adoption, and their
long established culture (cultural theory adoption) to push their quality assurance
activities. Moreover, the political power of the communist party comes into play.
As argued by Pfeffer (1992), power is the ‘potential ability to influence
behaviour, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get
people to do things they would not otherwise do’ (p. 30). In this case, the political
power of the communist party, as already discussed in Chapter 5, puts pressure on
university 2 staff to comply with quality assurance requirements.
It is worth mentioning here that the intervening role of the communist party in the
leadership and management of the university is evident in all the case universities.
It is an unwritten rule that one needs to be a member of the communist party in
order to be appointed or promoted to managerial positions. When there is
environmental vulnerability that triggers conflict, power plays and self-interest, as
is the case with university 2, this political power becomes more of a controlling
power.
6.2.2.2 Espousal, enactment and experience in quality assurance initiatives
The premise in my mind when writing this part of the chapter is consistent with
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) observation that organisations can be viewed as
multiple realities, and ‘when someone’s action seems to make no sense, it is
worth asking if you and they are seeing contrasting realities … their mind-set, not
yours, determines how they act’ (p. 317). Therefore, differences in the
universities’ quality assurance practices could be a natural by-product of their
collective endeavours. In the subsequent section, I present major differences,
either between the universities, or within each university, based on the three
levels of policy espousal, enactment, and experience.
180
Regarding the differences among the universities, there is no significant
difference at the espoused level. There are a number of reasons for this. As
discussed in Chapter 5, public universities in Vietnam have to comply with
policies and requirements from the government and the MoET; this compliance is
reinforced by the political power of the communist party. Second, being one of
the two flagship national universities trying to achieve regional standards, the top
leaders at the institution level and the universities share a commitment to quality
enhancement.
In fact, the universities appear to have homogeneous espousal of quality
assurance policies. However, at the enactment level, the group of universities that
adopted bureaucracy, collegium and cultural theories (universities 1, 3, 4 and 5)
tend to be more active in their quality assurance activities, as testified by their
leaders.
Generally speaking, the policy-making leaders sit at a vantage point and are
supposed to possess ‘fluid expertise’ (Bolman & Deal 2008, p. 12) that allows
them to make decisions quickly in terms of when to shift the focus between
external compliance and internal improvement. Their decisions are based on the
available resources and staff capacity, and reflect the organisational theories that
their universities have adopted.
The next section presents a number of mismatches between the espoused level,
enacted level, and the experienced level in some universities, as identified
through data analysis.
University 1
The executive leaders from university 1 shared similar concerns that some quality
assurance P&P in their university reflected superficial compliance, and there were
still too many meetings. When internal processes increase administrative loads,
make more demands and become routinised, they lose the improvement potential.
Executive leaders raised another critical issue that seemed to conflict with the
essence of a continuous improvement approach to quality assurance. This was the
181
lenient assessment approach that provided inflated results. One of the executive
leaders from university 1 complained that the pressure for high achievement from
the espoused level made the teachers adopt this assessment approach, giving
higher marks to students than their actual performance deserved. She said ‘this
false association of high quality with graduates’ “attractive academic records”
actually has a negative impact on the university’s prestige and the real value of
graduates, from the employers’ perspectives’ (Interview 12-PI1, p. 10).
University 2
University 2 interview data analysis reveals two critical conflicts between the
enactment and experience levels, from the perspective of the executive leaders.
First, these leaders found that many quality assurance regulations were symbolic
of compliance, rather than facilitating real improvement. For example, the
inadequate infrastructure, facilities and resources for teachers and students are not
compatible with credit-based education and teaching methodology innovation, as
they do not facilitate research and self-study (the essence of credit-based and
learner-autonomy learning). Second, the executive leaders raised their concern
that quality assurance policy seems to focus on improvement of teaching and
requires many changes from teachers, while neglecting students. These leaders
believed that transformative learning demands the active engagement of students.
University 3
An executive leader from university 3 expressed her concern that at the enactment
level, the executive leaders and staff are driven to implement the quality
assurance activities. They bear the direct pressure triggered by the tension
between external quality assurance requirements and internal improvement
demands. She recalled their recent engagement in an important national project,
saying, ‘we had to try by all means for these achievements, and used up the
resources while having little time and budget for capacity building’ (Interview 03-
PI2, p. 5). Some other interviewed leaders from universities 1, 2 and 4 shared this
182
concern, believing that “hot”19 development would negatively affect the
sustainable commitment of staff (Interview 26-PI1, Interview 12-PI1, Interview
20-PI1).
In this scenario, the problem seems to originate from the scarce resources and
with top leaders using their political power to drive change. Leaders made
policies as they believed these are necessary for improving the quality of teaching
and research. However, the teachers-implementers themselves found these
policies unrealistic and burdensome. For the purpose of sustainability, university
3 should not rely on their political power or the culture that holds their staff
together.
University 4
The executive leaders from university 4 criticised the top level leaders who did
not properly address the cultural conflict - the different perspectives relating to
educational quality held by different groups and units. This ‘cultural conflict’
(Bolman & Deal 2008, p. 207) was also reflected in the contradictory assessment
approaches between senior teachers, who tend to assess leniently for the sake of
the students, and young and high-profiled teachers, who tend to assess strictly for
the sake of the university’s quality reputation.
One executive leader from university 4 further elaborated:
The young generation teachers graduated from overseas universities and are
familiar with quality assurance in prestigious universities, they perceive
quality as the university’s brand name and therefore want to keep the exit bar
high; whereas the older teachers have affection for students and complain
that the young teachers are harsh on students. (Interview 26-PI1, p. 6)
This excerpt demonstrates the problem of different perspectives relating to
quality, which is also evident in university 1 and university 3 (Interviews 12-PI1
and 03-PI2). One possible remedy might be the refinement of the internal P&P for
academic affairs.
19 Colloquial Vietnamese, meaning development without caring for the environment, and the
human resource.
183
University 5
University 5 interview data analysis did not indicate any significant conflict
between the enacted and experienced level of quality assurance P&P
University 6
Similarly, there were no emerging findings on the mismatch between the enacted
and experienced levels of quality assurance policy in university 6. One explaining
variable would be that this university joined the quality assurance arena later than
the other universities. At the time of the data collection, university 6 was
preparing the first self-assessment report for program accreditation. As common
sense goes, when you do not take many actions, you can avoid the error-making
risk.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented a review of current quality assurance adoption and
implementation at the case institution and within its member universities.
First of all, the key findings from the data analysis revealed that the APQN
quality assurance framework is commonly adopted by the member universities.
This APQN framework and its related Chiba principles provide the member
universities with guiding policy and procedures (P&P) for, firstly responding to
external quality assurance requirements from the MoET, then accumulating
experience and expertise to develop their own internal quality assurance systems
and mechanisms.
The main part of this chapter presented the major findings from the analysis of
interviews with policy-making and executive leaders across the universities. The
current implementation of quality assurance practices at the universities was
uncovered from the perspectives of these leaders, who are involved in the quality
assurance initiative, mainly at two levels: espousal and enactment.
184
The third part of the chapter was focused on the interpretation of the divergence
across the member universities, regarding which component(s) of the quality
assurance framework received more, or less, investment in resources and effort.
This interpretation was made through the lenses of organisational theories and the
change management levels of espousal, enactment and experience.
In the next chapter, current quality assurance implementation at the case
universities is examined at a deeper level. The possible factors that might enable
or hinder quality assurance implementation in general, and the development of the
internal quality assurance mechanism in particular, are discussed in more detail.
185
CHAPTER 7. THE FACTORS THAT IMPACT QUALITY
ASSURANCE PRACTICE AT THE CASE-STUDY
INSTITUTION
Introduction
In the preceding chapter, the differences in quality assurance implementation
among the case universities were analysed through the lenses of Manning’s
(2013) higher education organisational theories and Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
four frame model for examining organisations.
This chapter addresses research question 2 - What are the possible factors that
impact on the quality assurance implementation at the case universities? This
includes the two sub-questions: What are the possible factors that facilitate
quality assurance implementation at the case universities? and What are the
possible factors that hinder quality assurance implementation at the case
universities?
In the first part of this chapter, the key findings on quality assurance enablers are
presented. Next, emergent themes on quality assurance inhibitors are elaborated,
to add contrasting colours to the picture of quality assurance implementation at
the institution under study. The third part of the chapter provides a discussion on
these affecting factors, in connection with previous studies in the literature.
7.1 Factors that facilitate quality assurance practice at the universities
The major argument of this study is that sustainable quality assurance at the case
institution has two essential conditions. The first condition is the legal framework
for system quality assurance, including the requirements from the MoET, and the
adoption of the APQN framework with accompanying Chiba principles. The
second condition is that the internal quality assurance system within each member
university is established and covers the dimensions of leadership and
management, stakeholder engagement, internal processes, cooperation and
186
collaboration, and quality culture. It is sufficient to work on internal quality
assurance, given that there is in place the external legal framework to drive the
internal quality assurance process.
In the succeeding sections, major findings and related discussion are presented,
first identifying the factors that enable or impede quality assurance, as perceived
by the interviewed leaders, then exploring how these factors interactively support
the dimensions of the internal quality assurance framework.
7.1.1 Human facilitating factors: staff awareness and commitment
As discussed in Chapter 5, quality assurance in education is a key initiative in
higher educational reform, first imposed by the MoET, and gradually
institutionalised by top public universities. Bolman and Deal (2008), in their
organisational studies, viewed change as a process that benefits some groups and
individuals, and therefore get their support, while neglecting or harming other
groups and individuals, who either oppose it, or become unresponsive. In this
section, I present the findings relating to the former group. The latter group are
discussed later in the section on inhibiting factors.
Data analysis indicates that the majority of the interviewed leaders emphasised
the importance of the human resource in implementing quality assurance practices
or implementing change. A policy-making leader from university 3 strongly
affirmed that ‘we really need people who are passionate for improvement, people
who have the needed capacity to implement changes’ (Interview 06-PM1, p. 4).
In the case universities, the change agent from inside the organisations, the staff,
help the universities to transform, by implementing quality improvement
activities. Interestingly, as perceived by the interviewed leaders, through this
process, the staff transform themselves and become more adaptable to the new
environment. The major findings from data analysis identified several reasons
why the staff in the case universities increased their awareness of the need to
change, as well as the effects of their transformed behaviour.
187
First, the staff were alerted to social changes, such as employers asking for higher
quality graduates, or students becoming more knowledgeable with the aid of
advanced technologies and more demanding in their learning. Staff understand
that if they do not change to meet these higher demands, the best students will
turn to other institutions and they would suffer from both a shrinking business20
and low quality entrance intake (Interview 22-PI2, interview 27-PM2, interview
12-PI1).
Second, the staff were well informed of the new direction and long-term
strategies of the umbrella institution, and of their own universities. Many
interviewed leaders stated that in realising the strategic mission of becoming
recognised research universities and improving regional ranking, the academic
staff in their universities were encouraged and supported, as well as required to
continuously update their professional knowledge and methodologies, and jointly
conduct research with their undergraduates (Interviews 11, 12, 24, 26, 19, 25).
One leader from university 1 perceived that ‘this strategic mission acted as a push
for the teachers to improve themselves in order to at least survive, then strive’
(Interview 11-PI2, p. 7). Among the members, universities 1, 2, 4 and 5 had larger
numbers of research projects conducted at national and international levels
(Document 11, Appendix 5), and their staff, understandably, appeared to have
greater awareness of the need to actively engage in research, involve students in
research, share the research outcomes among the academic community and
integrate these updated research results into course content. All these endeavours
advocate the transformation of student learning, an important outcome of quality
assurance (Harvey & Knight, 1996; Harvey & Newton, 2004).
Third, the staff were inspired by their universities’ prestige and long-lasting
improvement culture. One executive leader from university 1 shared her
perception that the teachers in her faculty, especially the younger ones, were
‘proud to be a member of the university and would feel ashamed when they do
20 As discussed in Chapter 5, there has been a significant increase in the number of universities
and colleges, rising to more than 400. This means that there are approximately seven institutions
per city/province, thus creating enrolment pressure for many public universities.
188
not catch up with the senior teachers in teaching and research’ (Interview 12-PI1,
p. 6). Similarly, one executive leader from university 2 positively viewed the
intrinsic motivation of the teachers in her faculty, including young females who
had to arrange child care in order to pursue further education and join in
professional events (Interview 22-PM2). In such universities with long-standing
traditions and prestige (universities 1, 2 and 3), ,as perceived by the interviewed
leaders, a symbolic culture of faith and pride could help shape staff behaviour
through inspiration. In light of this symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008), the
interviewed leaders from university 6 attributed their staff’s intrinsic motivation
to their passion for the teaching profession and the family-like team spirit
(Interviews 10, 13, 14).
Fourth, the staff were affected by some quality assurance activities, and became
aware of the need to change their attitude and performance. For example, the
results of the student evaluations of teaching raised the teachers’ awareness to
reflect on their performance and make necessary changes (Interviews 07, 03, 24,
25, 11, 17). The opportunities for overseas training or teacher exchange programs
were also based on capacity and credibility criteria, therefore teachers were aware
that if they did not improve their knowledge and teaching methodologies, they
would be ‘out of the game’ (Interviews 06, 15 and 25). In addition, peer
mentoring reports or annual staff performance evaluation had a direct impact on
the teachers’ annual bonus income, so they had a reason to change (Interview 05,
07).
Last, the younger generation, the junior teachers with less than five years’
experience, learnt from their exposure to high educational quality and quality
assurance practices at prestigious universities abroad. They appeared to advocate
quality assurance and were aware of the need to preserve their university’s brand
(Interview 21, 26 and 27).
Once the staff had participated in quality assurance activities and increased their
awareness, their transformed behaviour and willing participation could, in return,
facilitate cooperation and collaboration, supporting leadership and management to
189
accomplish agreed-upon missions. Most importantly, staff awareness and the
possible consequent staff commitment are essential ingredients for a sustainable
quality culture. The role of staff awareness and staff commitment in promoting
quality culture has been emphasised in several quality assurance frameworks,
such as the ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
education), the APQN, and the Australian higher education quality assurance
framework (Shah, Lewis & Fitzgerald, 2011; Stella, 2008; Houston, 2008; Cullen
et al., 2003).
One interesting finding on staff awareness and commitment to quality assurance
in the case universities is that the initiative was better supported by young staff,
most evidently in universities 1, 4, and 5. This group of staff mostly graduated
from overseas universities and advocated high educational quality. According to
one young executive leader from university 1, the young teachers in her faculty,
including herself, appreciated the pressure to get to a higher level in both teaching
and researching. She said:
First, you only move forward when there is a mission [the strategic education
program: BSc jointly conducted with an American university] - a big
pressure for you. Second, when teaching in this program, you have a chance
to work with American professors and use their curriculum, then you have to
try your best. Of course, it is exhausting, but in the end the quality of the
academic team is greatly improved. (Interview 12-PI1, p. 12)
This opinion was consistent with the experiences and perceptions of many young
leaders from universities 1, 4 and 5 (Interviews 08, 11, 21, 23, 24, and 25). It can
be assumed that the high-calibre and young staff commit to quality because they
themselves benefited from high quality education overseas and now want to
cascade the best practices through their teaching.
190
7.1.2 Organisational facilitating factors
7.1.2.1 Effective human resource management
It can be inferred from data analysis on the facilitating factors for quality
assurance that those universities that appear to have more ‘people with needed
capacity to implement change’ (Interview 06), had more advantages in both
quality assurance compliance and quality improvement. In other words, in
universities 1, 3, 4 and 5, the universities that had successful experiences with
regional accreditation at the program level, and robust systems of internal P&P
supporting quality culture, the role of unifying and high profile teams was
emphasised by the interviewed leaders.
There seems to be a common formula for strategic development of strong
academic teams in universities 1, 4 and 5. These universities focus on the
recruitment of highly qualified academic staff. One policy-making leader from
university 1 stated that ‘from this year [2013] we only recruit PhD holders to be
lecturers. We have a network of about 200 alumni who hold a PhD and working
in Europe, America and Japan. Many of them expressed their interest of going
back and work for the university’ (Interview 08-PM2, p. 16). Another policy-
making leader from university 5 shared that her university applied favourable
recruitment policies to attract PhD holders from overseas, as this would bring
more high quality intellectual resources for the teaching and research of the
university, as well as enhance their capacity to provide economic policy
consultancy for the government (Interview 25-PM2). Although it might be argued
that a PhD does not mean quality, this recruitment policy in universities 1, 4 and 5
appears to be a necessary short-term measure to enhance the capacity of the
academic team.
Document analysis on human resource statistics of the universities under study
also confirmed that universities 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a higher percentage of teaching
staff who are PhD holders, Associate Professors and Professors, compared to
universities 3 and 6 (Document 12, Appendix 5). Specifically, university 4, which
is among the group of younger and smaller size universities, had a significant rate
191
of PhD qualified teachers, accounting for more than 70%, and teachers with
professorships accounting for 25% (Interview 23-PM1). Another special case is
the university 1 faculty under study. In this faculty, all of their teaching staff hold
PhD qualifications and 39 of 70 of them are under 45 years old (Interview 08-
PM2). This is exceptional for any public university in Vietnam.
Having high profile teams is one necessary condition for quality assurance.
However, several other conditions are required to ensure sustainability. Kruger
and Dunning (1999) found that incompetent people often overestimate their
performance because they do not know what good performance looks like.
Additionally, it is arguable that even competent people, such as the high profile
teams in my study, need clear terms of reference regarding roles, responsibilities
and expected outcomes for their performance. Many of them, despite having
graduated from overseas universities and apparently familiar with quality
assurance practices, may not perform to the expected standard in their current
work, due to the interfering impact of many contextual factors. More elaboration
on these contextual factors is provided in the succeeding sections.
Again, one major finding from the interview data reveals that the quality
assurance high achieving group of universities 1, 3, 4 and 5 had more refined and
robust systems of internal P&P, including those related to human resource
management. As discussed in Chapter 6, the member universities adopted
personnel policies developed by the umbrella institution. However, during
implementation, each university had certain autonomy in refining the policies to
adapt to their conditions. The differences in the way these were implemented was
discussed in Chapter 6.
The common practices that the above universities applied in their human resource
management included developing well-informed annual targets for teaching
hours, research quotas for staff, and clear step-by-step procedures for staff
performance evaluation (Interviews 08, 21, 27, 10, 07, 19). For example,
university 5’s annual research quota for principal lecturers requires publication in
192
two peer-reviewed journals and one conference paper, equivalent to 450 teaching
hours (Interview 18 and 19).
Many policy-making leaders mentioned the new initiative of the umbrella
institution - the development of job description (JD) for each position in the
university personnel system. This initiative was welcomed by the top leaders from
all the universities (Interviews 04, 07, 06, 05, 15 and 21) and was perceived to
facilitate the operation of the human resource management system. As asserted by
Pfeffer (1992), human resource management is likely to be effective when people
share a common perspective on what to do and how to accomplish it, as well as a
common language to facilitate cooperation.
Another important aspect of human resource management - staff training and
professional development - is dealt with in the coming section on collaborative
learning.
7.1.2.2 Enabling environment for continuous improvement
Analyses of interview data indicates that the leaders across the member
universities were in agreement that an enabling environment or mechanism for
continuous improvement has a central role in promoting a quality culture and
improving the quality of core educational operations.
First, the findings suggest that the enabling mechanism consists of two
components: (1) the existing systems of internal processes and
reward/punishment, with a controlling function, such as controlling the
curriculum review procedures or the personnel recruitment procedures; and (2)
the accompanying mechanisms of support, monitoring and evaluation, with a
supporting function. While the first component seems to be more critical to
compliance-led quality assurance, as discussed in Chapter 3, the second
component was seen by the interviewed leaders as crucial for improving staff
commitment as well as their performance; in other words, supporting
improvement-led quality assurance.
193
Regarding the supporting mechanism, the leaders across the universities
witnessed a good variety of supporting policies in favour of research and capacity
building. In universities 4 and 5, the governing board and all administrative
departments provided administrative support for the faculty in gaining and
disbursing funding for their research projects, ranging from 40 million Vietnam
dong at the university level to 5 billion at the state level21 (Interviews 18, 19, 21,
24). In university 4, teachers were granted initial funding when they successfully
presented their research proposals, as the top leaders believed that ‘research
projects will bring more funding for the university, chances for improving both
research and education, research outcomes as peer-reviewed journals will
contribute to university ranking’ (Interview 24-PM1, p. 9). Other types of
financial support for research were seen in all universities, such as allowances for
teachers who present at international/regional conferences, and grants for research
publications (Interviews 03, 24, 14, 08, 18, 07).
Other measures were applied at universities 1, 4 and 5 to support young teachers
in order to gain their commitment. These measures include providing young
teachers with research funding, ‘for example 10 to 20 million dong22 per year so
that they can continue to pursue their research initiatives’ (Interview 12-PI1, p.
10); and opportunities to be members of thesis councils, research appraisal
committees, and collaborative research projects, so that they could earn extra
income (Interviews 08, 24, 18). As one young leader from university 4 asserted
‘the young researchers can take the initiative, what they need from the university
leaders is trust and an open mechanism that supports new initiatives’ (Interview
23-PI2, p. 12).
Relating to the university’s support for capacity building, one executive leader
from university 3 said:
The supporting mechanism is in place now, in the past, we were requested to
do this and that [professional development activities] but there was no
21 Approximately equivalent to US$1,900 and US$238,000. 22 Approximately equivalent to US$450 to US$500.
194
support so teachers were not motivated. During the recent years, I have
witnessed the administrative and financial support being granted for such
activities as mentoring programs for new teachers, it’s like you have to open
both the entrance and the exit doors so that teachers can go through.
(Interview 03-PI2, p. 11)
The excerpt suggests that the supporting mechanism motivates staff and acts like
a catalyst moving them forward; when they start moving, and overcome their
inertia, they gradually form the habit of moving, or making changes to improve
their performance. Another type of support for capacity building is evident across
the universities. Young teachers are encouraged to pursue further studies, if they
study part-time inside Vietnam they get a reduced workload; if they study full-
time overseas they still receive 40% of their salary and their jobs are secured
(Interviews 06, 04, 07, 05, 15, 21).
A policy-making leader from university 6 positively perceived the supporting
mechanism in his university. This allowed for each academic faculty to have
autonomy in disbursing their allocated stationery budget. In the past, this budget
was managed by the department of finance and each teacher was provided with
certain stationery at the beginning of the year. With the new policy, each faculty
could buy stationery to share among staff, and therefore they could diversify the
types of stationery they acquired, as well as save some of their budget for tea
break expenses (Interview10-PM2). As this leader said, such a small change in
policy made teachers in university 6 happier.
As many among the interviewed leaders were teachers with managerial
responsibilities, they could share their perspectives and experiences regarding the
supporting mechanisms in place from both viewpoints. Analyses of their
interviews revealed that there were gaps between the amount of support in terms
of funding, opportunities, autonomy and flexibility that the leaders believed
should be granted, and the expectations and concerns of the teachers over
working conditions. This issue is discussed in more detail later in the section on
constraining factors.
195
As discussed previously, when a system of internal processes is already in place,
a supporting mechanism must accompany it, as well as a monitoring and
evaluation mechanism. This monitoring and evaluation mechanism will help …
detect any problems that arise during the enactment of these processes and
differentiate between poor-performance errors [e.g. the lecture theatre was
not timely opened because the janitor in charge forgot to check the updated
schedule] or system-fault errors [e.g. teachers cannot access the booking
system to change booking for lecture theatre] and propose suitable solutions.
(Interview 06-PM1, p. 10)
To assist this decision-making, an evidence-based approach was applied across
the universities, but most evidently in universities 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Commenting
on this prevailing practice at the universities, one leader from university 6 said ‘in
our daily work, recording the evidence and understanding the purpose of this,
actually facilitate the evaluation of our performance’ (Interview 14-PI1, p. 9).
What is more, the monitoring and evaluation mechanism helps reinforce the
internal processes. For example, as one executive leader from university 2
reflected, teachers may start to doing regular course reviews and learning
outcomes revision simply as a formality, however, as the process progresses, with
feedback and critical review from their colleagues or managers, they gradually
become aware of the real benefits of this revision process (Interview 20-PI1, p. 6).
It is true in this case that actions drive thinking. Also, improved internal
communication and feedback channels proved important in supporting the
monitoring and evaluation of task performance (Interviews 01, 03, 08, 13).
Collegial factors that positively affect individual performance and cooperation
The findings suggest another set of contributing factors towards the enabling
environment for continuous improvement: collegial factors. These intangible
factors appear to positively affect both team cooperation and individual
performance.
196
Many interviewed leaders from universities 2, 3, 4 and 6 believed that the ‘mutual
trust’, ‘openness’, ‘sharing and caring’ between leaders and staff, as well as
among staff, created a friendly and enabling working environment (Interviews 20,
06, 24 and 10). Their views are consistent with Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) claim
that teamwork, trust and empowerment were important in fostering staff
commitment, and require leaders’ efforts.
Moreover, in the case of faculties that had successful regional accreditation
experiences (universities 3 and 4), the teachers were used to working in task-force
teams outside of their normal divisions. Through these interactive practices, the
inter-personal relationships among staff members were strengthened. Therefore,
they not only shared with, and cared for, each other in work but also in their
personal life (Interview 06-PM1). One interviewed leader from university 2
appreciated the informal forums on new research trends, initiated by those staff
who had attended or presented at international conferences (Interview 20-PI1).
Another leader from university 5 stated that:
our community favours sharing and learning, and collaboration. It helps
reduce teachers’ anxiety when participating in such quality assurance
activities as peer observation, peer mentoring. In the long-run teachers are
willing to conduct these PD activities to improve their teaching capacity.
(Interview 19-PI2, p. 6)
It is worth noting that the “professional distance” (Crehan, 2002, p. 2) prevalent
in western contexts, was adapted to local conditions in these cases due to the
influence of one long-lasting trait of Vietnamese culture - caring for one another.
That said, the teachers still met the requirements of their academic activities while
maintaining an engaging and supportive learning environment.
When staff across the universities were given the chance to work in teams with
mutual trust, sharing, caring, and empowerment, they gradually moved from
passive involvement in quality assurance activities to developing ownership in the
process, leading to substantial improvements. Collegiality and change ownership
were thought to have enhanced cooperation and change implementation in the
197
cases of universities 3, 4 and 6 (Interviews 06, 24, 10). This fits well with Kouzes
and Posner’s (2007) argument that ‘everyone performs better when they take
charge of change’ (p. 169).
Regenerative quality culture
The regenerative culture type, discussed in Chapter 6, which focuses on internal
improvement while fully acknowledging external requirements (Harvey &
Stensaker, 2008), appeared to be in place in all the case universities, except
university 6. This regenerative culture encourages change and reframing in order
to regain balance, to generate new options and identify strategies for improvement
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The interviewed leaders in the five universities with a regenerative culture
believed that there were several possible factors that enhanced the sustainability
of a quality culture. These factors included: ‘increased staff awareness of the need
to start from small quality actions before planning for big quality initiative’
(Interview 06-PM1, p. 7); ‘increased staff awareness of the need to not just
complete their tasks, but rather, fulfil their tasks with full responsibility and
motivation’ (Interview 20-PI1, p. 12); ‘a system of transparent P&P together with
a monitoring and evaluation mechanism to help people firstly become accustomed
to quality assurance activities, then transform the quality habits to the need to
perform quality actions’ (Interview 21-PM2, p. 14); and ‘a process-oriented
approach to quality assurance’ (Interview 27-PM2, p. 10). Similar views were
evident in many other interviews with leaders (Interviews 03, 23, 10, 12, 25, 07,
14, 11, 18).
As previously outlined in Chapter 6, to some degree, all the member universities
reconceptualised their core values and reframed their future goals in order to
regenerate their quality culture, to reenergise the workforce, and to embrace new
challenges. This era of global challenges requires any HEI to make changes and
improve their educational core operations, in order to enhance their
competitiveness. A sustainable quality culture will significantly add to the
198
overarching organisational culture’s ‘superglue that bonds an organisation, unites
people and helps them accomplish desired ends’ (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 253).
7.1.3 Collaborative learning
As reviewed in Chapter 3, if the university can extract the essence of quality
management models for higher education with key principles of learning
communities, it can become a learning organisation (Whipple, 1987; Garvin,
1993; Buckle, 1998; Dill, 1999; Yorke, 2000; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002;
Senge et al., 2012). This learning organisation welcomes and facilitates
collaboration and collaborative learning across its units and between individuals
and teams. A university as an academic learning organisation is likely to be best
placed to cope with changes, and improve the quality of its core educational
operations through change management. One main reason is that through
collaborative learning and change university staff can enhance their capacity to
handle more challenging tasks.
Connected to this, several emerging themes from the analysis of the interview
data indicated the positive impact of collaborative learning on the improvement of
educational quality across the member universities.
According to 75% of the interviewed leaders from universities 1 and 3, the
professional development programs conducted in their universities added to staff
capacity enhancement and supported the quality assurance practices. One policy-
making leader from university 3 shared his experience:
I can direct staff towards a common framework of quality in our professional
work, by establishing a feedback system, allowing the staff access to
feedback from students, their attendance and performance at faculty PD
events, their participation in collaborative research. After the introduction of
this feedback system, I can observe that some “lazy teachers” started
participating in PD activities and adjusting their teaching. They actually
raised their awareness of the agreed-upon framework of quality. They have
their own framework, the faculty and the university as well, if the three
199
frameworks don’t overlap, how can we assure quality? (Interview 27-PM2,
p. 13)
A policy-making leader from university 1 also stressed that their PD programs
helped enhance faculty capacity and, as a result, contributed to maintaining the
quality reputation of the university, as ‘great teachers will produce good quality
educational products’ (Interview 05-PM1, p. 8).
The second type of collaborative learning activities is evident in universities 4 and
5, which is inter-faculty professional rotation. As the interviewed leaders from
these two universities similarly noted, in such a multi-discipline institution as
their umbrella institution, this practice could serve two purposes: developing
more versatile academic teams for member universities, while optimising the
human resource of the whole institution (Interviews 18, 19, 21, 24). Although this
practice could promote collaborative learning among the faculties, it requires tight
coordination and timely feedback processing for good effect.
The third type of collaborative learning, collaborative research, was observed in
the universities with a stronger research focus (universities 1, 2, 4 and 5). As
revealed by the interviewed leaders from these universities, collaborative research
was promoted from the division level. One leader from university 1 asserted that
‘there are seminars at division level, on current research trends and possible
international collaboration, from this basis, new research topics and inter-
disciplinary research projects can be formed’ (Interview 11-PI2, p. 5). Another
leader from university 4 added that the publication of research outcomes in
institutional journals, as well as the promotion of staff research outcomes, could
promulgate the achievements of individuals and teams, and therefore promote
self-improvement needs (Interview 26-PI1). Moreover, one prevailing practice in
these universities is the engagement of junior teachers in research teams. This
appears to be necessary immersion training for the next generations of researchers
and teachers.
200
Finally, evident across the universities was the involvement of students in
research projects with their teachers, as well as the promotion of student research.
In universities 1 and 4 the students could even join their teachers in large-scale
funded research projects, the outcomes of which were internationally published
(U1 interviews 08 and 12, U4 interviews 21 and 26). According to the ranking
criteria for top research universities in the USA, the availability of opportunities
for undergraduate students to participate directly in research accounts for 35% of
the total points. This practice of engaging students in research at the member
universities could facilitate transformative learning for students and, in the long-
run, add points to the ranked status of the umbrella institution as a top research
university in the region.
7.1.4 Exemplary leadership
The previous chapter presented the experiences and perceptions of the
interviewed leaders regarding the dimensions of leadership for quality assurance
implementation in their universities. There were convergences and divergences in
the application of leadership dimensions across the universities. As the core
element of all three dimensions is the leaders themselves and their leadership,
what makes great leaders and leadership will be attributed to the suitable
dimension for quality assurance in their own contexts.
Kouzes and Posner (2007) identified five practices of exemplary leadership: (1)
model the way; (2) inspire a shared vision; (3) challenge the process; (4) enable
others to act; and (5) encourage the heart. The interviewed leaders’ perspectives
of good leadership matched well with these five exemplary practices. Each is
discussed in more detail below.
(1) Model the way
All the interviewed leaders from university 3 consistently stressed the role of a
strong leadership commitment to quality and quality assurance. The Rector of this
university pointed out that ‘if there is lack of commitment from us, the staff will
have difficulty in implementation [of quality assurance practices]’ (Interview 06-
201
PM1, p. 4). Another university 3 policy-making leader shared his experience,
through which he proved himself a role model who leads by example:
I do as I preach and practice quality assurance in every task that I’m in
charge of. I direct my staff to the adopted framework of quality. For
example, we recently organised a national conference and I was in charge of,
from providing concept of a high quality conference, to selecting and editing
papers, providing regular and timely feedback and critical comments. After a
while, my staff became more self-disciplined and paid more attention and
efforts to their projects. They felt bad when their team repeated a mistake or
received negative feedback, while other teams did well. (Interview 27-PM2,
p. 15)
One policy-making leader from university 6 also highlighted the need for leaders
to lead by example, to encourage and motivate staff through holding themselves
accountable for agreed-upon goals and behaviour (Interview 10-PM2).
(2) Inspire a shared vision
The findings on shared vision have already been presented in Section 7.1.1, in
terms of its role in improving staff commitment. Here the focus is on the linkage
between shared vision, leadership, and improved performance and quality. The
interviewed leaders across the universities held similar views about the ability to
envisage the “big picture”, communicate the shared vision and mobilise staff to
achieve that vision, as vital to their leadership. Moreover, they were aware of the
need to translate the shared vision into the language of individual staff, cascading
it into their daily activities. The experiences of leaders from universities 1 and 4
exemplify this, as follows:
The long-term strategy of becoming the first university in Vietnam that
offers international standard bachelor education in chemistry has been well
communicated to our faculty members. It is a big challenge that requires us
to make changes, to improve our core operations. Quality assurance at
faculty level is therefore given more focal investment from the university.
(U1 interview 08-PM2, p. 6)
202
The strategies of our university have changed through time, but still towards
the envisaged vision of becoming a regionally high ranking research
university. The teachers/researchers in our leading faculties of electronics
and telecommunication are focusing on research that could at least meet the
regional demand. We are now among the leading group in ASEAN in the
field of micro-electro-mechanical. (U4 interview 23-PI2, p. 9)
These experiences and perceptions fit well with Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
suggestion that ‘[in order to communicate the shared vision] leaders can construct
a persuasive story by painting a picture of the current challenge or crisis, and
emphasizing why failure to act would be catastrophic’ (p. 396).
(3) Challenge the process
This practice of exemplary leadership can be seen more vigorously in universities
1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The interviewed leaders from these universities elaborated on
how they searched for ‘opportunities to innovate, grow and improve’ (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007, p. 19). Examples include:
the introduction of ‘both product and process’ criterion for management of
teachers’ annual research (teachers are required to meet their research
quota of two research papers and one presentation at a
division/faculty/university seminar, as well as to work in research teams
for long-term research initiatives) (U3 interview 03);
the awareness and consequent practice that accreditation is one-off. What
is more important is the development and implementation of post-
accreditation improvement plans (U4 interview 21);
the adoption of international course books and experimental online exams
and English-based tests (U4 interview 23);
the setting of high-end objectives that will influence the market and the
mobilisation of resources around those objectives (U5 interview 15); and
the development of a system of satellite schools to be partners for their
placement quality improvement initiative (U6 interview 04).
203
(4) Enable others to act
The majority of the interviewed leaders held positive views on the role of staff
involvement in quality assurance in their universities. They were aware that
sustainable quality assurance requires ‘team efforts, group collaboration and
individual accountability’ (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 21). For instance, one
university 3 leader stated that their staff were involved in developing the annual
plan from division to faculty and up to university level. This planning specified
the procedure and expected outcomes of their work. It helped improved their
overall performance (Interview 01-PM1, p. 7). Another leader from university 6
also stated that when their staff were involved in planning, their cooperation and
task implementation improved (Interview 13-PI1). The engagement of staff in
planning and throughout the implementation of routine operations, as well as
quality assurance initiatives, is crucial in making staff become part of the process
and own the process - a practice of staff empowerment (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
This not only prevents staff from “sitting-on-the-fence” or staff being isolated
from the larger team but, more importantly, has the potential to unleash improved
staff performance and productivity.
In short, leaders who can build trust, empower their staff through engagement and
capacity enhancement, and foster collaboration, are able to enable others to act
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
(5) Encourage the heart
This fifth practice of exemplary leadership can be seen more evidently in
universities 2, 3 and 6. As presented in the preceding section on collegial factors,
“caring and sharing” is a typical feature of these universities’ organisational
culture. Two executive leaders from university 2 shared their successful
experiences in motivating their staff by caring about their personal problems (U2
interviews 20 and 22). One policy-making leader from university 3 stressed the
need to maintain face-to-face interaction between leaders and staff, especially in
this era of virtual communication via emails and social networking (Interview 06-
PM1). Another policy-making leader from university 3 stated that:
204
When my staff could assure the quality of their work - which is a demanding
job, they deserve compliments, because in our Vietnamese culture, “the
offering is more important than the feast itself”, so I consider giving timely
and due compliments as my recognition of their assured quality. (Interview
27-PM2, p. 15)
In all member universities, as shared by all the interviewed leaders, such events as
the Vietnamese teachers’ day, the Vietnamese women’s day, the Vietnamese
army’s day, and other ceremonies, provided opportunities for celebrating their
universities’ values and achievements and for paying tribute to generations of
staff. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) claimed, encouraging the heart of the
constituents is one of the ways that leaders can make people stretch themselves.
7.1.5 Support from key stakeholders
The previous chapter provided the findings and discussion on how stakeholder
engagement, as an important component of the quality assurance framework, was
conducted at the site universities. Main groups of stakeholders and major
activities, were discussed.
In this section, I highlight the support that the universities gain from their key
stakeholders, as this source of support proved to be an enabling factor for quality
assurance.
First, all the interviewed leaders from the active group of universities (universities
1, 4 and 5) recognised an array of both tangible and intangible resources provided
by their external stakeholders from international and national industries and
businesses. These included financial support in the form of scholarships for
outstanding students, funding for research, funding for lab establishment and
maintenance; technical support in the form of feedback on curriculum and course
improvement needs, seminars or workshops on current market needs and trends;
and internship and job opportunities for students. For example, two university 1
leaders said:
205
They [Japanese and Korean companies] invited us to their opening
ceremonies for new factories or industrial compound. They provided useful
feedback on our program, such as the need to increase practice and
experiments, especially on real equipment. (Interview 8-PM2, p. 20)
We conducted bilateral exchange events and actively listened to their needs
and feedback, in order to match the internal capacity and the external
demand. Recently we have invited experts from Castrol and Shell to give
guest talks to both staff and students, on current market trends. (Interview
11-PI2, p. 11)
Second, although the engagement of alumni is generally limited across the case
universities, some leaders from universities 1 and 4 reflected on their partial
achievement. One executive leader from university 1 mentioned the valuable
support from their alumni in the form of funding, loan or hire for extremely
expensive equipment or chemicals for lab experiments (Interview 12-PI1). One
executive leader from university 4 stated that their students got internships or job
opportunities granted by their successful alumni (Interview 23-PI2). This type of
alumni support was seen as contributing to the improvement of student learning,
making it more practical.
7.2 Factors that hinder quality assurance practice at the universities
In the second half of this chapter, the findings on the inhibitors to quality
assurance in the case universities from the perspectives of the interviewed leaders
are presented. Also discussed is how these factors impact or relate to the key
components of the quality assurance framework adopted by the universities.
7.2.1 Human constraining factors
7.2.1.1 Student issues
As briefly described in Chapter 5, Vietnamese students have several common
characteristics: they are passive learners who follow patterns and learn well with
clear instructions; they lack exploratory learning, self-study and critical thinking;
206
and they dare not challenge the learning process or the taught knowledge. But
these characteristics are not inherent. Instead, students are products of an
educational system imprinted with these features.
When quality assurance was introduced and adopted by the case universities, the
quality of teaching and learning was one of the three major areas of focus,
together with research and administrative services. It is evident in the findings
that while improvement in teaching and teacher quality received due attention and
investment, improvement in student learning seemed to be overlooked. This is
because it was believed that improved learning would be an inevitable
consequence of improved teaching (Interviews 12, 22, 20, 25).
Although students’ transformative learning was promoted in all the faculties
under investigation, especially in the accelerated or fast track programs (programs
specially designed for selected high-achiever students, with more credits and
more advanced courses) that were regionally accredited, it might not be the same
degree of promotion in the other faculties (Interviews 25, 27, 12). As revealed by
the executive leaders who were more involved in teaching than the policy-making
leaders, there were several negative issues regarding student learning in the case
universities. These appear to be related to the above-mentioned characteristics of
Vietnamese students. One executive from university 1 raised her concern that:
Because of the high-stake entrance examination to university, it is assumed
that students are homogeneous, if we think that the quality of Vietnamese
higher education then depends on the robust infrastructure and abundant
resources, and excellent and passionate academic teams; or that quality is
reflected in high marks and awards, these don’t reflect the real quality. The
reasons are: 1) Our students are lazy, 2) they don’t have clear objectives for
their learning and 3) they don’t have the ability to self-study or explore.
(Interview 12-PI1, p. 6)
Another leader from university 2 shared similar concerns that if a learner-centred
approach and open-book exams are widely applied to the teaching of
207
mainstream23 students, the results could show the students’ poor knowledge, as
they are so used to exam-driven learning, or learning what they are taught in class
and being tested accordingly (Interview 20-PI1).
Data analysis of the interviews also indicated another critical student issue. The
interviewers believed that students lack important skills needed for their future
life and work in a rapidly changing world. These include life skills and
professional soft skills, such as inter-personal communication, critical thinking,
problem solving and decision making, work planning and time management,
independent learning as well as teamwork, and other soft skills (Interviews 12,
27, 14, 18, 26, 20). Due to the shortage of these skills, a large number of
graduates whose academic records are excellent might only marginally meet the
immediate expectations of employers (Interviews 12 and 26).
All these student issues were perceived by the interviewed leaders as impeding
transformative learning and the enhancement of student learning quality.
Nevertheless, as Bolman and Deal (2008) pointed out, ‘targeting individuals
while ignoring larger system failures oversimplifies the problem and does little to
prevent the recurrence’ (p. 27). The adoption of a learner-centered approach to
teaching and learning, and the renovation of the curriculum allowing for the
integration of study skills and professional soft skills, as practiced in the
accelerated or fast-track programs of universities 1, 3, 4 and 5, proved to be
successful in helping students develop their full potential (Interviews 12, 27, 01,
25, 26, 18).
7.2.1.2 Teacher issues
Data analysis identified several issues related to teachers and the impact of their
practices on quality assurance. First, one executive leader from university 1
acknowledged that ‘our approaches to teaching and assessment actually degrade
the quality of higher education’ (Interview 12-PI1, p. 4). She elaborated, saying
that the current university assessment did not reflect the true quality of graduates.
23 Students in normal full-time programs, not the selected ones in accelerated or fast-track
programs
208
Many universities produce graduates with marks of nine and ten (the current
marking scale in Vietnam is from zero to ten [ten being the highest]), and believe
that their quality is high. In reality, however, many of these graduates do not meet
the immediate requirements and expectations of employers (Interview 12-PI1).
Other leaders from universities 2, 4 and 6 similarly asserted that the inconsistent
assessment criteria24 across the universities result in employers becoming
confused and even doubtful about the quality of graduates, as well as the quality
of training institutions (Interviews 20, 21, 26 and 27). In the long-run, the reduced
rate of graduate employment would adversely affect the ranking of the
institutions, thus affecting enrolment and creating a vicious circle.
As previously indicated in Chapter 6, inflated assessment practices were observed
by many interviewed leaders. They critically admitted that one of the factors that
negatively impede quality improvement came from the teachers themselves. One
university 1 leader shared incidents when some thesis defence panels dared not
give marks five or six, or fail unsatisfactory theses (Interview 12-PI1). By doing
this, as many other leaders believed, they released poor quality products into
society (i.e. concealing the poor quality, cheating themselves and cheating
society) (Interviews 03, 27, 26, 14, 20). There are possible reasons behind the
teachers’ lenient assessment, or reluctance to fail students. The first reason might
be the pressure from the governing board to maintain good quality programs and
a high percentage of good or excellent graduation theses. Another reason might
be the influence of the cultural factor of achievement-driven education, as
discussed in Chapter 5.
This inflated assessment practice appeared to not be common across the faculties
of the case universities. The two university 4 faculties under study, for example,
adhered to strict assessment and failed those students who were not qualified to
pass courses or graduation exams. The percentage of students failing was reported
to be higher than that of other universities (Interviews 23 and 26).
24 For example, percentages for attendance and continuous assessment during the semester vary
across the faculties and universities.
209
Other negative teacher issues, as identified by the data analysis, include:
Teachers’ lack of competence necessary for quality improvement
initiatives, due to the absence of designated PD events and/or quality
assurance training (Interviews 03 and 27).
Teachers who put their ‘too big egos’ above quality requirements. As one
university 3 leader observed, ‘many teachers think that when the
classroom door is closed, they have their own world and can do whatever
they want, for example, one teacher was reported to use the TOEFL-
based materials prepared for her moonlighting classes, rather than
teaching critical reading skills as specified in the syllabus’ (Interview 27-
PM2, p. 12).
Teachers who care only about their individual needs or their group
interests, instead of ‘being responsible for the common tasks, as required
by the university of the faculty’ (Interview 07-PM1, p. 17). These
teachers had low self-responsibility, preferred management by time rather
than by results, and were not whole-hearted or fully committed to quality
practices.
Commenting on the possible inhibiting factors to quality assurance that relate to,
or originate from, the teachers, one executive leader from university 2 and one
policy-making leader from university 3 respectively provided their insightful
experiences and observations:
I think at the compulsory level everybody was aware that performing quality
practices is their obligation or responsibility. Yet from that awareness to
most optimal and effective implementation as possible, it really depends on
individuals. (Interview 20-PI1, p. 11)
Young teachers quickly get updated with quality assurance requirements but
they lack knowledge and experience, whereas older teachers had inertia to
change although they had rich knowledge and experience. Therefore, in
those divisions where the connection between teacher generations is loose,
210
quality assurance awareness and improvement might take longer. (Interview
06-PM1, p. 9)
7.2.1.3 Resistance to quality assurance implementation
Data analysis identified another constraining human factor: the resistance to
quality assurance practices. Emerging data suggest that resistance came from
different groups with different reactions. First, all of the interviewed leaders from
university 3 (Interviews 06, 01, 03, 27), and half of the leaders from university 1
(Interviews 05 and 12) and university 2 (Interviews 07 and 20) observed that it
was hard to involve senior staff, especially those approaching retirement, in
quality assurance activities such as PD programs and research initiatives. A top
leader of university 3 also asserted that staff performance P&P may not work with
this group (Interview 06-PM1) as senior staff knew that their salaries and jobs
were secured. Furthermore, the group of seniors included those who were
conservative and sceptical, they resisted change ‘out of fear, because it is
impractical and difficult, or it challenges the way things have always been done in
the past’ (Graetz et al., 2011, p. 13) (U1 Interview 12).
The second group contained staff who refused to participate in quality assurance
activities due to either their inertia or innate resistance to any change, or their
pragmatism (i.e. they only did what was of benefit for them, or the new P&P
affected their group interests) (U6 Interviews 10 and 14, U4 Interviews 21 and
26). In another scenario, as half of the leaders in universities 1 and 3 noticed,
many of their staff lost interest in quality assurance activities because they got
involved in accreditation tasks and then realised that these accreditations were
one-off and no long-term management was addressed (Interviews 12, 11, 01, 27)
Young staff who worked under short-term contracts and therefore had low
commitment to the university, or those in the age group of child bearing and
raising, formed the last group resisting change (U3 Interviews 01 and 03, U2
Interviews 20 and 22).
211
The reactions from these resistance groups included: an avoidance approach (first
and second groups); completing tasks to a minimal level (second and third group);
spreading criticism via social networks (second group); strongly protesting in
staff meetings against new changes (first group); or quitting their job (third
group).
As can be inferred from the perspectives of the interviewed leaders, the low levels
of professionalism and awareness among certain groups of staff can be attributed
to their resistance to change. Some notable solutions suggested by the interviewed
leaders included: improving professionalism and awareness through
communication and training; applying KPIs for staff performance evaluation; and
issuing the right policies that take into account all feasibility elements (Interviews
06, 21, 05).
The above findings could be interpreted, in line with previous studies in business
and organisational change management, that it is unlikely to have a 100%
consensus and synergy for any big change, especially in large-scale organisations,
i.e., disapproval or negative attitudes are unavoidable. Moreover, awareness-
raising is a difficult task and sustaining the required level of awareness seems to
be no less challenging. Therefore, the vision should be shared by leaders and
communicated effectively down to the grassroots level and, more importantly,
reinforced through “short-term victories” (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Kotter, 2002;
Graetz et al., 2011).
Coping with these resistance actions and behaviours requires leaders to bring into
full play their leadership skills. It is worth referring to well-recognised claims
about effective leadership, as evident in organisational management, change
management, and leadership literature. This includes: ‘leaders do the right thing’
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985, cited in Bolman & Deal 2008, p. 343); and ‘leaders think
in the long-term, emphasize vision and renewal, and have the political skills to
cope with the demands of multiple constituencies (Gardner, 1989, cited in
Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 343).
212
7.2.2 Organisational inhibiting factors
7.2.2.1 Human resource management (HRM) issues
The first barrier to effective quality assurance identified relates to human resource
management challenges.
Emerging data indicated that the biggest HRM challenge facing the case
universities was associated with heavy workloads and tight budgets. The
interviewed leaders across the universities shared similar concerns that the ratio
between management and teaching loads for middle-managers like the faculty
management board, and that between research and teaching loads for academic
staff, were not appropriate and led to overloading at both levels (Interviews 01,
03, 21, 26, 14, 12, 18, 22). Two leaders from universities 4 and 5 further
elaborated on this point, saying that due to the small size of their universities and
faculties, many academic staff were holding senior management positions while
having to fulfil the required teaching loads (Interviews 21 and 18). One executive
leader from university 3 reported that many teachers in her faculty had to do
double or even two and a half times the required teaching load (Interview 03-
PM2). When the academic staff were stretched, while their remuneration was
inadequate for a liveable standard25, compliance to quality assurance requirements
is hard enough, let alone a commitment to continuous improvement.
Many interviewed leaders perceived that staff shortages would remain a long-
term issue, as the universities either had tight budgets (universities 1, 2 and 6) or
had difficulty in financial disbursement26 (universities 3, 4 and 5). As a
consequence, extra problems arose. For example, the lack of human resources for
new elective subjects (due to staff shortages and tight budgets for outsourcing) led
to the renovated curriculum having many elective subjects “only for show”
(Interviews 20, 21, 27); or the stretching of academic staff over a two-year or
25 The basic monthly salary of a newly recruited teacher, at the time of the data collection, was
approximately US$100; that of a senior teacher with twenty years’ experience, was around
US$300. 26 As discussed in Chapter 5, the case institution and its member universities had to follow the
rules and regulations for income generating and disbursement, as specified by the Ministry of
Finance.
213
even longer period led to staff burn-out (Interviews 03, 14, 21). These problems
apparently undermine the implementation of quality assurance or its sustainability
in the long-term.
Another HRM issue that impedes staff motivation, and hence hinders quality
improvement, relates to the staff performance evaluation and accompanying
reward mechanisms in place at the case universities. More than half of the
interviewed leaders across the universities expressed their concern over the
current staff performance evaluation schemes. As briefly mentioned in Chapter 6,
leaders found these schemes to be unfair. For example, many staff with excellent
performance records were not rewarded at the institutional level due to restricted
quotas (Interviews 21, 07, 08, 27); or the criteria for performance evaluation were
not KPI-based, and still focused more on administrative compliance matters than
academic improvement aspects in the performance evaluation of academic staff
(Interviews 11, 27, 03, 20, 12). This HRM issue would undermine high-
performing staff motivation, as it goes against recipes for successful quality
assurance as Westerheijden’s (2007) “what gets rewarded gets done” (p80) or
Graetz et al.’s (2011) “what gets rewarded gets repeated” (p. 154).
One specific HRM issue directly connected to quality assurance was that the
human resource in charge of quality assurance at the unit level was limited
(Interview 24-PM1), and that the quality assurance related administrative tasks
had become a burden to a small number of faculty staff (Interview 14-PI1). These
perceptions were echoed by many other executive leaders (Interviews 22, 03, 01,
13, 12, 11).
The above findings suggest that the position of quality assurance in the internal
governance structure of the universities is not strong enough to effect meaningful
change in quality assurance practices.
7.2.2.2 Limited resources for quality assurance
The development and implementation of quality assurance initiatives in the case
universities requires human, physical and financial resources, as well as time.
214
There was agreement among the interviewed leaders across the universities that a
financial mechanism that supported quality assurance proposals and the
availability of critical resources were crucial for ensuring educational quality.
However, the reality of resource availability and utilisation across the universities,
as perceived and experienced by the interviewees, indicated that the limited
resources and improper physical and financial usage, appeared to hinder the
implementation of quality assurance initiatives.
The biggest challenge to ensuring and improving educational quality, as
perceived and experienced by many executive leader interviewees, related to the
mismatch between the available physical resources for research, teaching and
learning, versus the requirements for increased research and teaching quality, as
well as the adoption and implementation of credit-based education. Many
executive leaders from universities 1 and 2 shared their concern over the lack of
resources as follows:
The working conditions for teachers are still sub-standard. Many seniors
working nearly their whole life at the university and have not yet been
provided with a work station with a computer. In the room next door [to
where the interview was being conducted] there are 7 work stations for 7
divisions, so at a time, only one division member can use that space.
(Interview 20-PI1, p. 13)
At faculty level, we only have very restricted budget granted by the
university, for such activities as student lab practice, purchase of chemicals
and utensils for experiments, for those big equipment purchases or
maintenance we don’t have funding. Sometimes we have to use our pocket
money, extract some from our own project funds, or call for alumnus
support, to buy chemicals for students’ lab practice. There is still a shortage
of facilities and equipment to meet the demands of both teachers and
students. (Interview 12-PI1, p. 12 and p. 19)
The adoption of a credit-based education and learner-centred approach
require students to self-study. However, the majority of our faculty students
come from suburban or rural areas and so have to stay in poorly conditioned
215
hostels. When they come to university, there are not enough study spaces in
libraries, not enough books and reference materials, and limited access to
computers. (Interview 22-PI2, p. 14)
In small size and new universities (universities 4, 5 and 6), there was a shortage
of classrooms and lecture halls. They had to rent outside the institution or share
access to some spaces with university 3 (Interviews 10 and 26). It is evident
across the universities that the available facilities and infrastructure could not
meet the demand of the increased student intake. During the field trip, I observed
that in the faculties under investigation in universities 1, 4, 5 and 6, each of their
divisions was provided with at least one simple work station, whereas in
universities 2 and 3 this was not the case: all their divisions shared one common
multi-function room. These circumstances evidently influence the implementation
of quality assurance practices.
Two policy-making leaders from university 5 claimed that they lacked time,
money and investment in such quality assurance initiatives as “test bank
development”27 (Interviews 15 and 25). One said, ‘we need money for the ICT
system, the digitisation of tests, and a mechanism to pay for test designers’
(Interview 15-PM1, p. 10). Similarly, one executive leader from university 1
critically compared the test-designing experiences of her American visiting
professor, who spent two intensive weeks on a test and had never issued a single
overlapping test in his 25 years of teaching, and her experience of designing a test
within a few days. For this, she received a small payment of VND 50,000 (about
US$2) per test, on top of her poor monthly salary (Interview 12-PI1).
Many other interviewees further commented that the problem is not just a
shortage of facilities and equipment, in some cases, it is the lack of proper
utilisation of the available resources and planned usage of the government budget.
For example, one leader from university 1 admitted that although they had
27 The test bank contains standard tests that are developed by teachers for all courses, to be used
officially for progress and achievement assessment. The leaders from university 5 believed that
this initiative would, in the long-run, help save time and money for test design, as well as ensure
the quality of tests.
216
modern equipment, they lacked funding for maintenance and spare parts, resulting
in wasted resources (Interview 12-PI1). A leader from university 3 questioned the
practice of regularly changing computers and photocopy machines for all the
administrative departments while the whole faculty of more than 130 staff had to
share one or two photocopy machines and two laptops (Interview 03- PI2).
Another concern shared by many interviewed leaders, as raised briefly earlier,
was that accreditation seems to be a one-off job, as it was difficult to get funding
for implementing post-accreditation improvement plans (U2 Interview 07-PM1,
U3 Interview 27-PM2, U1 Interview 05-PM1, U4 Interview 21-PM2). One top
leader from university 3 noted ‘as far as I know, all rectors of public universities
can think of how to get extra financial resources, however, how to do it while
abiding by the law is a hard math problem’ (Interview 06-PM1, p. 16). Another
policy-making leader from university 1 shared his concern, saying, ‘being among
the top research universities receiving a government subsidy, we actually have a
low level of autonomy in deciding our education programs, as well as in finance,
we want to have more autonomy so that we can issue more favourable policies for
quality assurance practices’ (Interview 05-PM1, p. 15). Restricted financial
autonomy in Vietnamese public universities remains a problem. So, in many
cases, while the intention is there to ensure quality, in real terms the policy is not
well enacted because of the outlined constraints.
It can be inferred from the data analysis that in many circumstances across the
case universities, even in the leading faculties in terms of quality assurance
implementation, there was a level of superficial compliance. For example, as
shared by two university 3 leaders, their learning resource centre was upgraded
for program accreditation, with new books and software, yet the number of
students who accessed and used the resources did not increase (Interviews 03 and
27). An interviewee from university 2 commented that when classrooms are
crowded and access to computers, facilities, and learning resources is limited, it is
challenging to ensure the standards and indicators set by the new quality
assurance office (Interview 20). As mentioned in the preceding section on
217
resistance to quality assurance, one of the reasons why many university 1 senior
staff protested against the new strategy of developing the faculty to an
international level, was the fear that they did not have the required human and
physical resources (Interview 12-PI1). Often, it requires both teachers and
students to rely on their own resources, to improve the quality of teaching, and to
ensure quality of continuous assessment, tutorials or project-based learning.
However, these types of private investment or such belief-driven behaviours as
teachers’ goodwill and loyal devotion to the institution, or students’ love for the
university and “sacrifice for a better future”28 (Interviews 12, 20, 22) should not
be the only ingredients for sustainable quality assurance.
The findings discussed above illustrate that both the inadequacy and misuse of
resources create challenges for the operation of the quality assurance mechanisms
in the universities. A more serious hindrance to quality improvement, as foreseen
by a university 5 top leader, is that people may compromise quality on the
premise that high quality equals high cost, and low quality equals low cost
(Interview 15-PM1).
7.2.2.3 Conflicts in organisations
According to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) classification, conflicts in organisations
can be identified as vertical conflicts occurring between levels, horizontal
conflicts occurring between departments or units, and cultural conflicts caused by
different values, beliefs and lifestyles between groups. In this research, emerging
data indicated that horizontal conflicts happened mainly between academic
faculties and administrative departments, and cultural conflicts between
generations of teachers. There were few findings related to vertical conflicts,
although it can be inferred that resistance to change could be a type of hidden
vertical conflict.
As perceived by all the executive leaders from universities 1, 2 and 3 (the group
of bigger and older universities with cumbersome administrative structures), the
28 A common motto generated by the student unions in many public universities.
218
horizontal conflicts between academic faculties and administrative departments,
although having been softened due to the systemic P&P for improved work
quality, still smouldered beneath the surface. These executive leaders noted that
the unequal division of labour and power between the two sections, as well as
their contradictory perspectives towards the function of the administrative
departments, either hindered or reduced the effectiveness of cooperation in
implementing quality assurance practices (Interviews 01, 03, 11, 12, 20, 22).
One university 1 executive leader observed that the limited sharing among the
administrative departments themselves created more pressure and workload for
academic staff. For example, the department of academic affairs had all the
scheduling and staffing information, but did not share that with the personnel
department for remuneration-related calculations. Instead, requests were
circulated to academic staff to calculate their teaching hours and submit them to
the personnel department (Interview 11-PI2). In the same vein, one university 3
executive leader witnessed many instances when the in-service training
department and the academic affairs department summoned the same teachers for
two different events, often at short notice. As a consequence, these teachers had to
do extra tasks: sending reports or feedback, justifying why they attended one
event and not the other (Interview 03-PI2). As these leaders perceived, it seemed
easy for the administrative departments to send out requests that put unnecessary
pressure on academic staff.
There was agreement among these executive interviewees that the administrative
departments appeared to manipulate their power to get things done, believing
their function was managing, rather than supporting. Evidently, operations that
require inter-dependent cooperation between the two sections are often stifled by
the red-tape.
In the above section on teacher issues, teachers’ inflated or inconsistent
assessment of students’ learning was considered a factor negatively impacting on
the assurance of educational quality. Here, it is worth noting that the conflict that
occurred at the interface between generations of teachers was likely to be
219
attributed to this inflated assessment. As the executive leaders of universities 1
and 4 experienced, the younger generation tended to hold on to the view that
improving quality would promote the positive reputation of the university so there
should be no compromise. The older generation, however, appeared to
compromise quality standards (Interviews 12, 26, 25) ‘simply because this batch
of students should get concession as they worked much harder than their peers in
other universities’ (Interview 26-PI1, p. 10) or ‘because they feared that the high
requirements for educational quality and too strict assessment could lead to
decreased enrolment, due to the current trend of the labour market in favour of
employees with degree’ (Interview 25-PI2). Although it requires further study to
explain why the younger teachers do not have these concerns in the same way as
their seniors, there might be one possible reason: the younger teachers are not yet
at managerial positions that require them to make decisions or be responsible for
the university’s intake.
This cultural conflict, or to be more precise and appropriate in this case, quality-
cultural conflict, occurred between the older and younger generations in
universities 1 and 4, an interesting pair of universities - one old and one young,
but both strong in research at the international level. This type of conflict created
by the change (the implementation of quality assurance initiatives), turned into
what Bolman and Deal (2008) called ‘a tug-of-war between innovators and
traditionalists’ (p. 385).
Regarding vertical conflicts between levels, again, the emerging findings
generally came from the executive leaders who were involved in both levels of
enactment and experience. Their comments were therefore multi-perspective.
Many interviewees from universities 1, 2 and 3 asserted that conflicts existed
between the policy- making leaders’ vision and “ambition” against the staff-
implementers’ perception and capacity. As these interviewees saw it, the leaders
were playing on many fields at the same time, rushing to implement many
initiatives while the institutional resources were not yet compatible, i.e., the staff
capacity and physical resources were not ready. This might result in staff
220
stretching or compromising quality here and there (Interviews 03, 27, 20, 12). It
can be inferred that, like the horizontal conflicts, vertical clashes often go
underground. The succeeding sections on contextual and Vietnamese culturally
specific factors might offer some further explanation for this.
The above findings indicate that the three types of conflicts: horizontal, cultural
and vertical, exist in universities 1, 2, 3 and 4 and, to varying extents, hinder
quality assurance implementation. Variants of these types of conflicts might also
be found in universities 5 and 6, since change invariably creates conflicts and
conflicts are part of organisational life (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Graetz et al.,
2011).
7.2.3 Affecters - Context and Vietnamese culture
In analysing the factors that influence the management of organisational change,
Graetz and colleagues (2011) termed context and culture “affecters”, as
something that ‘illustrates the role of key variables in influencing all constituents
of the change process’ (p. 10). This final part of the chapter presents the findings
related to context (the environment and system in which the universities
operates), and culture (the set of Vietnamese values and beliefs commonly held
by the staff)
As for the context, the case universities operate under several social, systemic and
legal constraints.
Social pressures
First, as perceived by many interviewed leaders, their umbrella institution was
facing a challenge: aiming at the high end of the labour market by educating the
elite and producing highly-qualified graduates, while having to meet the social
demands for mass education. If they focussed on mass education, they might have
to lower their standards, but how far could the standards be lowered without
compromising quality? For example, in university 4, only 30% (18/60 students)
of the 2008 student intake graduated as scheduled in 2012, but the governing
221
board could not compromise quality for a higher graduation rate (Interview 26-
PI1).
Another social factor that makes quality assurance more difficult for some
universities relates to the social demand for employees with degrees. In addition,
the available job opportunities did not match with the state policy of prioritising
basic science and elite education29 (Interviews 05, 07, 26). All interviewed leaders
from university 2 consistently expressed their concern over this issue, that
‘history [the faculty of history] is losing its status, students don’t select this, or
they enrol just for the sake of having a place to study, they have no job prospects’
(Interview 17-PM2, p. 12), or ‘there are seven fields of study in our faculty, but
only one field - history of the communist party - is favoured by the students
because of the higher rate of employment, whereas other interesting but difficult
fields as archaeology or history of ancient Vietnam are not selected’ (Interview
20-PI1, p. 4). The reduced enrolment and consequently reduced state funding
appear to affect the improvement of educational quality in these universities.
Commenting on the need to have external social forces to accelerate internal
quality improvement, one university 2 interviewee asserted that there was a lack
of synchronisation between the state policy, the operation of education
institutions and research institutes, and the job orientation for both students and
their parents from the high school level (Interview 17-PM2). A policy-making
leader from university 5, as indicated in Chapter 6, claimed that the low demand
from customers (prospective employers) might lessen the power of the internal
improvement gear (Interview 15-PM1).
The government and MoET context
Many interviewed leaders across the universities mentioned the legal constraints
that, to varying extents, impact on the implementation of quality assurance. For
29 Elite education refers to the type of education funded by the government for resources,
equipment and facilities, to educate selected students into highly qualified professionals and
researchers.
222
example, one university 5 policy-making leader complained about the
“flexibility” in assessing quality standards among public universities, saying that:
we set higher quality bars for our educational operations but received similar
credit as other institutions that produce lower quality products. Even worse,
we might risk violating the law, because in order to have funding for some
specific quality assurance initiatives, we need to implement some activities
that are not compatible with the current regulations30. (Interview 15-PM1, p.
11)
Similarly, two leaders from universities 1 and 6 mentioned their lack of financial
autonomy at the faculty level and the lack of legal identity or legal mechanism to
allow them to provide outreach activities and generate income for the faculty
(Interviews 12 and 10). Beside this concern over finance, many leaders
consistently argued that the MoET’s regulation on the required number of
teaching hours per year conflicted with the institution’s requirement for increased
research outputs. This policy mismatch appeared to affect the realisation of the
institutional mission of becoming a leading research institution in the region
(Interviews 21, 26, 27, 12, 20).
One contextual factor that appears to impede the sustainability of quality
assurance is remuneration which is not up to a liveable standard. As revealed by
the interviewed leaders, many young teachers at university 1 would ‘commit
because they are passionate and responsible, [but] they have to find
supplementary income sources from participating in research projects’ (Interview
12-PI1, p. 9). This practice was common for many young teachers from
universities 2, 4 and 5 (Interviews 20, 22, 23 and 19). Meanwhile, many of their
peers from universities 3 and 6 “moonlight” or take on extra teaching to earn their
living (Interview 01-PI1, interview 13-PI2). This latter group consequently had
little remaining time for doing research. In both scenarios, it is a challenge to
sustain quality assurance when staff commitment is either “good now but hard to
30 For example, offering visiting faculty staff who are well recognised in their field a higher rate of
honorarium than that required by the Ministry of Finance.
223
prolong”, or marginal because, sooner or later, they have to respond to their
family’s immediate needs. Commenting on this challenge, one experienced
executive leader from university 2 empathetically said:
when their kids asked for money to pay for extra classes or buy yoghurt as
their peers did, parents have to find ways to earn more … we ourselves are
senior teachers or researchers, we can earn more from big collaborative
research projects, but for many teachers who can’t find research projects and
so have to do other part-time jobs, how can they focus on improving
teaching and research, when their personal life is not ensured? (Interview 20-
PI1, p. 14)
Pressure from the umbrella institution
As indicated in the section on HRM issues, such quality improvement initiatives
as the “strategic mission programs”31 generated increased pressure and heavier
workloads for all administrative departments and related faculties. While this
pressure was perceived by the interviewees as necessary to push forward toward
its achievement goals, it inevitably created such problems as: an overloaded
curriculum, which left limited time for student self-study; large classes, which
impeded the quality of continuous assessment; overloaded leaders due to extra
supervision; and some quality assurance initiatives that could not be sustained
because self-supervision is not a common practice in Vietnamese workplaces
(Interviews 26, 12, 27, 07, 04, 21).
It can be seen from the above findings, that many of the discussed contextual
affecters have been mentioned in the preceding sections. There are, however,
multi-directional interactions between the affecters and other constraining factors,
which makes it difficult to finely separate them and discuss each one discretely or
independently.
31 The programs in which all courses are taught through the medium of English, applied in
selected faculties at universities 1, 2, 4 and 5.
224
Regarding the second key affecter of culture, data analysis identified several
Vietnamese culturally-specific factors that influence the implementation of
quality assurance practices. The most significant findings are as follows:
The influence of the long-lasting rice farming culture: farmers usually
plan their daily activities around the weather, often they plan at the
beginning of the day. For example, if it is going to be a sunny day, they
will dry out the newly cut rice. This culture has affected the working
culture of many staff, as about 80% of the Vietnamese population work in
farming and agriculture. Consequently, they have to learn to plan for their
work in a different way. For example, they must plan for the whole
academic year or semester, in connection with the annual plan of the
institution or faculty, rather than just planning for their next week or
tomorrow’s lessons. (Interview 06-PM1)
Hierarchical interpersonal relationships, or the absence of professional
distance: it is still common that staff do not separate work and personal
relations. For example, teachers feel empathy for students and students
respect teachers, leading to inflated assessment or generous evaluation of
teaching, respectively. In addition, senior staff can manipulate juniors, or
junior staff have to respect seniors, because “seniority means superiority”
in Vietnamese culture. Because of the values of “respect your teachers”
and “respect the senior”, staff rarely challenge their leaders. Instead they
let their disagreement subside. This provides a possible explanation for the
finding that both vertical and horizontal conflicts often smoulder or go
underground (i.e. they are not talked about). (Interviews 26, 07, 05)
Peace in harmony: this trait of Vietnamese culture could be an advantage
in conflict management, and provides an additional explanation for hidden
conflicts. However, in quality assurance activities, such as staff
performance evaluation or project peer review, it appears to be an
inadequate quality sustainer. (Interviews 27, 04, 07)
Achievement-obsession: this has been termed a “disease” by Vietnamese
public media, as it has severely affected the quality and operation of the
225
whole educational system. In terms of quality assurance, it has led to
symbolic compliance and inflated assessment (Interviews 12, 26, 10, 03),
or even ‘evidence fabrication’ for self-assessment reports (Interview 27-
PM2).
In summary, many of the above findings reflect the influence of certain traits of
Vietnamese culture on the implementation of quality assurance, as outlined in
Chapter 5. Apparently, the case universities have to adapt to these contextual and
cultural affecters in order to sustain and then thrive (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
7.3 Further discussion
The findings from the interview data analysis provided insightful material to help
answer research question 2 – ‘What are the possible factors that impact on the
quality assurance implementation at the case universities?’
The figure below provides a visualisation of the identified enablers and inhibitors
in quality assurance implementation, reflecting the multi-directional interaction
between these factors and the main components of the internal quality assurance
mechanisms established at the case universities. The enablers are coloured in
green and the inhibitors are coloured in brown.
226
Figure 10: The interaction of quality assurance enablers and inhibitors
227
As can be seen in the diagram, there are three types of interaction: supporting
(represented by the single arrow); challenging (represented by the dashed arrow); and
having relationships (represented by the dotted arrow). Regarding colour coding, the
main quality assurance framework components are blue, the enablers are green, and
the inhibitors are brown.
According to the findings of this study, all the identified enabling factors directly
support relevant quality assurance components. Accordingly, the quality culture
component is supported by 1) increased staff awareness and commitment; 2) the
enabling environment for continuous improvement, which is created by the
supporting system of internal processes, monitoring and evaluation, and collegial
factors; and 3) the regenerative quality culture in practice. The cooperation and
collaboration component is strengthened by 1) effective HRM; and 2) collaborative
learning. The leadership and management component is reinforced by exemplary
leadership exercised by the universities’ leaders. The stakeholder engagement
component receives support from external stakeholders.
The challenges from the constraining factors can be seen as follows: limited
resources challenge the operation of internal processes, while negative HRM issues
hinder cooperation and collaboration. Both conflicts and the resistance to quality
assurance pose challenges for leadership and management, quality culture, and
cooperation and collaboration. The affecters (context and culture) impede the
operation of leadership and management and the sustainability of quality culture.
These contextual and Vietnamese cultural factors also have an effect on conflicts,
student issues, and teacher issues.
An examination of the diagram, while reflecting back on the findings relating to
quality assurance enablers and inhibitors, offers complementary insights into the
current quality assurance implementation at the case universities.
228
Being a strategy-driven change, the quality assurance initiative adopted by the case
institution and its member universities reflects a “reframing” (Bolman & Deal, 2008)
of the organisation, ‘taking a different perspective … to generate new ways of
thinking about and responding to the need for change’ (Graetz et al. 2011, p. 21).
This reframing involved the formation of the quality assurance frameworks
established at the universities, as analysed in Chapter 6. These frameworks were
comprised of the human element (leaders, staff, stakeholders); the system/structure
element (P&P, quality culture); and the internal-external collaboration element
(stakeholder engagement, cooperation and collaboration). As the diagram above
depicts, this structure currently receives powerful pushing forces from such factors as
staff awareness and commitment, enabling environment for continuous improvement,
exemplary leadership, effective HRM and support from external stakeholders.
Inevitably, there are pulling forces that undermine the operationalisation of the
quality assurance mechanism. As can be seen from the findings, most of the
inhibitors were identified by the executive leaders. This might be because this group
of middle management leaders were involved in both policy enactment and
experience, so they were able to offer dual perspectives. For example, part of their
responsibilities was to cascade the desirable quality assurance practices down to the
grassroots level and, in this process, they could feel any potential top-down pressure
as well as the bottom-up resistance. The policy-making leaders, on the other hand,
had to focus on the agreed-upon mission and mobilise people to do what needed to be
done, and even stretch staff if needed.
Regarding the constraining factors perceived by the executive leaders, two key
inferences can be made from the findings. First, the three factors of conflict,
resistance to quality assurance, and affecters (context and culture), appear to have
direct impact on several components of the quality assurance mechanism. Therefore,
these factors deserve to be examined in greater detail. Second, some pulling forces
stem from two factors that the universities have limited control over: affecters and
229
limited resources. The awareness of these factors might inform institutional policy
makers of how to address the status quo.
Bolman and Deal (2008) argue that when things are out of control in an organisation,
one of the following explanations apply: the ‘targeting a guilty individual’ option or
the ‘blaming the bureaucracy’ option (p. 27). In this case study, if the blame is on
individuals, then attention rests on teacher issues, student issues, the closed mind-set,
and resistance to change. All of these might block the sight of the larger system
failures, as warned by Bolman and Deal (2008). On the other hand, problems should
not be solely attributed to bureaucracy, or to the lack of clear goals and roles, or rules
and procedures, as the administrative structure supporting quality assurance is
already in place. More importantly, some major hindrances come from the
overarching system or external environment. My argument here is that we should
examine both the individual and the systemic inhibitors, as well as their possible
interaction.
Conflicts and resistance to quality assurance
Many organisational theorists (see, for example, Sporn, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Heffron, 1989; Graetz et al., 2011) view conflicts as an inevitable by-product of
organisational life, and that conflict is not necessarily a problem. Heffron (1989)
claimed that conflict has both benefits and costs, as an organisation operating
harmoniously might offer little space for creativity, flexibility and responsiveness to
change. Bolman and Deal (2008) suggested that leaders should examine conflicts
from the political frame, placing more emphasis on strategy and tactics than on
conflict resolution. In light of these theoretical arguments, it seems necessary for the
case universities to co-exist with conflicts, such as the power tension between
academic and administrative units, as this tension might actually help maintain the
inter-dependence between academic and administrative units. For the short-term,
addressing these conflicts requires the application of a situational approach to
230
leadership. For the longer-term, conflicts might be prevented or lessened by the
institutionalisation of systemic procedures. As commonly found in the organisational
management literature, conflicts should be viewed as challenges leading to changes,
rather than hindrances to development.
Before making the decision to soften or crush staff resistance to quality assurance
initiatives, the leaders should listen to, and understand, their perspectives. As claimed
by Pfeffer (1992), staff resistance may arise from a different perspective on what
leaders’ information means, rather than a lack of information. Therefore, leaders
should ‘diagnose the point of view of the different interest groups and the basis for
their positions’ (Pfeffer 1992, p. 341). This would then lead to two possibilities: 1)
their perspective can be realigned through enhanced communication, training or
support; or 2) their perspective offers critical and original perceptions of the issues.
The former can be fixed by immediate actions, while the latter requires leaders to
reconsider the strategy or recheck the system and make necessary realignments. This
is when Graetz et al.’s (2011) “adaptive leadership” or Hersey’s (1984, cited in
Bolman & Deal, 2008) “situational leadership” come into play. These types of
leadership skills allow leaders to develop multiple perspectives about any issue, and
make appropriate decisions based on individual needs, skills and performance, as
well as the task and the situation in hand (Kotter, 1995, 1996;, Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Graetz et al., 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Organisational conflicts and staff resistance to change, if addressed early and well
managed, can trigger new ideas and approaches to problems, as well as stimulate
innovation and create more energy for organisational change. This can be compared
to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh’s remedy for embracing personal anger and turning
it into internal power (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2001). In this case study, the possible
energy transformed from the managed conflicts and resistance could hone leadership
skills for more effective leadership and management, enhance cooperation and
collaboration, as well as quality culture.
231
Affecters (context and culture)
As shown in the diagram, the affecters tend to negatively impact two elements of the
quality assurance mechanism: leadership and management, and quality culture. At
the same time, they have links to three constraining factors: conflicts, student issues
and teacher issues. Moreover, as indicated above, they belong to the group of factors
over which the case universities have restricted control. It can be said that these
affecters have both power and influence over the implementation of the quality
assurance initiative (Kezar, 2008).
Due to the multi-directional interaction between affecters and other factors, it is not
appropriate to blame the group of staff with low quality assurance awareness or
commitment, before seeking to understand the system. As presented in the above
findings, the systemic constraints include low salaries that lead to staff having to
spend time doing part-time jobs for extra income, resulting in less time for research,
participating in PD or capacity improvement activities. Additionally, in many
Vietnamese public universities, professionalism is not up to the expected level of
work ethics. All of these issues could lead to either symbolic compliance or the
unwanted practice of “low quality for low cost”.
Contextual factors originating from the broader system in which the case universities
operate appear to persist and are not likely to change overnight. The requirement for
quality assurance, however, is a matter of some urgency and environmental
challenges keep pushing universities to address this critical issue. To a certain extent,
the systemic inhibitors affect the sustaining of quality assurance awareness or the
translation of awareness into action. In the case universities, as indicated in the
findings, staff awareness and commitment were maintained, partly based on such
will-established elements as traditions or personal relationships (teacher-student). If
there is no positive change to the current context and system, then either the high
232
staff turn-over or the reliance on staff loyalty are undesirable options for
sustainability.
With regard to the identified lack of synchronised efforts between the government,
institutions and schools, one argument should be presented. As discussed in Chapter
5, universities in Vietnam, as well as those in other Asian countries, are facing rapid
social changes due to the advancement of information and communication
technology and the associated broadening of knowledge creation and transfer
boundaries. These changes challenge the long-standing role of universities as leaders
in knowledge creation through research and elite education. The gap between
university offerings and social demands seems to have widened, especially in the
case of those universities with slow or limited improvement. Therefore, it should be
each university’s mission to become more adaptive and take the initiative in shaping
the social needs, rather than expecting a centralised synchronisation between the
state, universities and society.
Another important factor is limited resources. This, in combination with the lack of
financial autonomy (one of the systemic constraints), seems to undermine the
implementation of such strategy-driven changes as quality assurance. As shown in
the diagram, this factor directly affects the operation of the internal processes, and
has linkages with HRM challenges. Bolman and Deal (2008) warned that when
‘organisational resources are in short supply, there is rarely enough to give everyone
everything they want’ (p. 206). In this case, continuous improvement needs might
have to be in stand-by mode, as resources need to be prioritised for responses to
accountability, or some other urgent projects.
A holistic view of the diagram representing the possible enablers and inhibitors in the
implementation of the quality assurance initiative and its ultimate outcome of
sustainable continuous improvement, offers various angles for understanding the
situation at the site universities. While enablers provide more power to the
233
established quality assurance mechanisms, inhibitors should not be overlooked or
underestimated. A variety of tools and techniques are at the university leaders’
disposal to help address these constraints, including ‘participation, education,
facilitation, negotiation, manipulation and coercion’ (Graetz et al., 2011, p. 13).
Coping with hindrances in organisational change is categorised by Kotter (2002) into
two out of the eight stages of successful change management: removing obstacles;
and sticking with the process and refusing to quit when things get tough.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented the prominent findings of the study on the possible factors
that enable or hinder the implementation of quality assurance at the case universities,
from the perspectives of the interviewed leaders. From these findings, a diagram was
created to reflect the multi-directional interactions between these factors and the key
components of the quality assurance framework, as well as the linkages between
certain factors. These interactions were then discussed, in connection with previous
studies in organisational change management, given that quality assurance initiatives
represent important organisational change. The discussion focused on the possible
interaction between the factors, taking into special consideration the influence of
contextual and cultural factors constraining the improvement of Vietnamese higher
education in general, and quality assurance implementation in particular.
One interesting question that arises from this discussion is how the case universities
can sustain their quality assurance systems when the identified affecters appear to
remain unchanged for an extended period. It can be argued that when the context
does not change, then strategies must change, and these changed strategies need to
accommodate both stability and dynamism. This is examined in more detail in the
next chapter.
234
CHAPTER 8. LONG-TERM STRATEGIES FOR QUALITY
ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN VIETNAM
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings gathered to address research question 3 - What are
the essential conditions for a sustainable quality assurance mechanism, from the
perspectives of the interviewed leaders?
The first section of the chapter addresses the key issue of how the universities
enhance their internal quality assurance in order to sustain crucial competitiveness
and change responsiveness. In this regard, the interviewed leaders’ perspectives and
extended discussion are presented. The second section distils the essence of the
findings and discusses the implications for Vietnamese public universities in relation
to viable quality assurance mechanisms.
8.1 How the universities enhance their internal quality assurance
As indicated in Chapter 7, one challenge facing the case universities is how to sustain
their internal quality assurance mechanism and be agile within an external context
that tends to remain rigid. Implementing quality assurance represented the first big
organisational change that the case institution, like many other leading public
universities in Vietnam, had to address. However, quality assurance initiatives would
not add much value to the development of the institution if treated as one-off
activities. It is process-oriented quality assurance that counts. In this respect, regular
internal quality assurance practices appear to create greater organisational change,
requiring the universities under study to ‘challenge conventional wisdom and design
new paradigms’ and ‘find the difficult balance between stability and dynamism’
235
(Graetz et al., 2011, p. 235). This section of the chapter examines the interviewed
leaders’ perspectives on this matter.
8.1.1 Leadership to navigate quality assurance
As reflected in the quality assurance framework adopted by the case universities,
leadership is an essential component. It is, at the same time, one of the core parts of
the organisational structure that has impact on any change initiative.
Chapter 6 presented an examination of the existing leadership and management in
relation to quality assurance at the case universities, in light of Middlehurst’s (1997)
framework. Chapter 7 identified exemplary leadership practise among the leaders in
line with Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) model, as one facilitating factor for internal
quality assurance.
This section investigates how the interviewed leaders perceived their role in
navigating the implementation of quality assurance, in order to make this important
organisational change sustainable.
Interestingly, most of the major findings came from the interviews with policy-
making leaders (university Rectors or Directors of quality assurance centres). One
possible explanation for this might be that the policy-making leaders are positioned at
a more vantage point to have a broader view of their university’s situation, in relation
to the general context of Vietnamese public universities.
8.1.1.1 Strategic planning with quality assurance integration
Almost all the policy-making leaders from the six universities, especially the top
leaders32, were well aware of the demands of their job in leading the organisation
with a vision, and ‘communicating their vision with clarity and power’ (Bolman &
32 As mentioned earlier in Chapter 6, the term ‘top leader’ is used interchangeably with the term
‘policy-making leader’. They all refer to the interviewed rectors/directors of quality assurance centres.
236
Deal, 2008, p. 436). These leaders said that they knew what they wanted for their
university and how they would get there. The question was how they could make
their university staff think along the same lines and act accordingly.
Commenting on the role of leaders in strategising the operations of the institution,
one top leader from university 3 stated that:
There are three elements - human, environment and resource - that affect our
operation. These three elements take turns to become dominating. For example,
one university has favourable conditions but lacks qualified staff, then the
priority should be head-hunting. In another university where high-calibre staff
cannot utilise their potential, the reason might be the working environment has
too many constraints, or that they do not have access to adequate resources. I
think the overarching element is leadership, the leader should have the capacity
to decide when to do what. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 19)
The above opinion was consistent with ideas from other policy-making leaders.
These leaders highlighted the need to develop context-informed policies based on the
thorough analysis of the three elements (human, environment and resource), as well
the external context. They believed that it is the responsibility of leaders, especially
those from the highest level of governance, to issue feasible and engaging plans and
policies for internal development (Interviews 06, 07, 15, 04, 24).
In this respect, one policy-making leader from university 4 shared one measure that
his university adopted to harmonise external and internal quality assurance. While
implementing the agreed-upon plan as required by the umbrella institution, taking
into account their own capacity for the required tasks, university 4 also improved
their internal quality relating to international standards, having their programs
accredited by ABET33 (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)
33 ABET is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation recognised by the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation (CHEA). ABET accredits college and university programs in the disciplines
of applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology, at the associate, bachelor,
237
(Interview 24-PM1). The other policy-making leader from university 4 supported this
viewpoint and emphasised that in approaching ABET standards, they needed to plan
for many things, not just improving the education programs, but more
synchronistically planning for human and physical resources, as well as the research
direction. Apparently, the implementation of the quality assurance plan for ABET
accreditation requires the engagement of pan-university activities (involving all
faculties and administrative departments) (Interview 21-PM2). As these leaders put
it, ‘by doing this, we will be able to implement the plan as required by the institution,
and at the same time develop potential for our own university’ (Interview 24-PM1, p.
10).
Regarding the issue of focusing on internal improvement or external accountability,
the other policy-making leaders from universities 5 and 6 believed that quality
assurance should be an integral part of the university’s operational plan, and that
focus should be on internal improvement. This was because enhanced internal quality
could lead to ensured external accountability. The Rector of university 6 asserted
that, ‘if we want to go to big seas and face the strong wind, first we need to be
internally strong’ (Interview 04-PM1, p. 30). Similarly, the Rector of university 5
emphasised that in order to improve their internal capacity, rather than responding to
the market needs, they would need to set their own goals and targets, even higher
than the standards currently accepted by the market. This leader strongly believed
that ‘our development should be our self-governed endeavour, the most important
thing is that we have a goal for self-development, which is good for the institution
and good for all staff, then we should go ahead with that’ (Interview 15-PM1, p. 12).
The quotes from these leaders imply that they were focused on exceeding threshold
requirements.
and master degree levels. non-governmental organization recognized by the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)
238
As discussed in Chapter 6, some middle management leaders perceived their top
leaders’ strategic plans to bring educational quality to regional/international
standards to be too ambitious. They were also concerned about resource shortages or
overburdening staff.
However, as argued by the top leaders, particularly those in universities 3, 4, 5 and 6,
their plans were long-term, with assessment criteria for specific work areas being
periodically revised to more challenging performance levels, approaching
international standards. These leaders believed that if they planned based on existing
capacity and set appropriate priorities stage by stage, they would achieve their
objectives (Interviews 06, 24, 15, 04 respectively). Therefore, the following distinct
approaches to quality were addressed at these universities: long-term planning,
regular review, staged development, and setting goals to reach international
standards.
Bolman and Deal (2008) described good leaders as having the ability to ‘sustain a
tension-filled poise between extremes’ and ‘combine core values with elastic
strategies’ (p. 436). In the previous chapters we have seen several types of tension,
including: accountability vs. improvement; administrative departments vs. academic
faculties; and quality improvement requirements vs. existing capacity and resources.
Although these tensions were not always extreme, they represented challenges for
leaders (Middlehurst 1997). In this case study, the top leaders’ comments suggested
that they were attempting to balance these tensions in order to maintain both stability
and dynamism. This “elastic strategy” enabled them to stay on track with the main
direction of the university and at the same time see new possibilities, create new
opportunities, and seek alternatives when coping with constraining factors.
It can be inferred from the top leaders’ perception of their universities’ strategic plan
and direction, that quality assurance initiatives supported their core missions, which
were: reaching international/regional standards (universities 1, 4, and 5); giving
239
priority to basic sciences education and elite education (university 2); aiming at the
high end of the labour market (universities 5 and 6); and pushing their limits beyond
what society was demanding of them (university 5). If these strategic plans and
development directions could be termed the “core” or “hardware” of the leadership
component of the quality assurance framework, then the “supplement” or the
“software” might refer to all the activities that require alternatives to measures and
connections between leadership and other quality assurance components. These are
discussed in the following section.
8.1.1.2 Policy-making leaders’ mindset: governing within given autonomy,
promoting university-wide synergy
Perspectives of the policy-making leaders (or top leaders)
As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the top leaders of the case universities,
like those of other public universities in Vietnam, are given limited autonomy for
policy. When applying the adopted quality assurance policies, they needed to
‘optimise the given autonomy while respecting its limits’ (U1 interview 05-PM1, p.
18). There was consistency in the statements of the other top leaders from
universities 3, 5 and 6 with regard to this “autonomy within boundaries” (Interviews
06, 15, 04- all PM1). It can be inferred from the viewpoints of these interviewed
leaders that in order to sustain their educational quality, they needed an open
mindset. With that mindset, they could opportunistically utilise any possible
autonomy, without separating their policy espousal from the broader context of
public university operations.
Data analysis of the interviews with policy-making leaders also identified that, while
these leaders experienced limited autonomy, they nonetheless encouraged staff
autonomy. The top leaders from universities 3, 5 and 6 strongly viewed their
leadership as governing (macro-managing), rather than controlling or managing
(micro-managing). The top leader of university 6 described his favoured leadership
240
style as ‘making them [the staff] work for themselves’ (Interview 04-PM1, p. 11).
These leaders advocated a well-established organisational structure with clear roles
and responsibilities. They perceived that empowerment and staff autonomy would
work to effect provided that adequate support systems were put in place (Interviews
04, 06, 15). It should be noted here that except for the top leader of university 4, who
could not make time in his tight schedule for an interview and therefore assigned it to
the director of the quality assurance centre, all the top leaders of universities 3, 5 and
6 expressed their support for staff autonomy. This reflected the organisational theory
of collegium adopted by their universities, as discussed in Chapter 6.
As indicated in the literature on organisational management and leadership,
governance allows for empowerment and staff autonomy, yet it requires clear goals
and roles, clear rules and procedures, and tight JDs (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Pfeffer,
1992). This viewpoint fits well with the case universities, as the leaders would not
have enough time and energy for micro-management, let alone the fact that micro-
management demotivates high-performing subordinates (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Therefore, leaders’ macro-management, or governance may facilitate staff
engagement (Middlehurst, 1993; Mai & Dang, 2012) in quality assurance activities,
for the platform (goals and roles, rules and procedures) is already in place.
Perspectives of the executive leaders
One approach to enhancing the institutional responsiveness to quality assurance
initiatives was highlighted by many executive leaders. This was to promote
university-wide synergy, an idea developed through their involvement in both aspects
of academic affairs and human resource management at the quality assurance
enactment level. One executive leader from university 2 asserted that ‘in many cases,
if staff capacity development is well conducted in single faculty or single division,
but the top-management leaders lack vision and fail to connect the great ideas into
significant endeavours, quality enhancement would be undermined’ (Interview 20-
241
PI1, p. 9). Another executive leader from university 6 proposed that the top leaders
should hold on to the development strategy and direct the capacity development for
more harmonious cooperation and less overlapping between the university units (i.e.
doing the same task, or repeating others’ projects) (Interview 14-PI1). Data analysis
of the interviews with many other executive leaders also revealed the expectation that
top leaders should have plans and roadmaps for human resource development to
encourage inter-discipline professional development. These leaders emphasised that
individual staff should take the initiative in identifying the most suitable development
area for themselves, aligned with their institutional development plan. They believed
that this mindset constitutes optimal human resource allocation (Interviews 03, 01,
23, 26, 10, 12, 19, 22).
As indicated in the organisational management literature, human resource
management and development can be best implemented when there are both top-
down approval and support, and bottom-up initiative and empowerment (see for
example, Graetz et al., 2011; Sporn 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2008). When individual
staff in the organisation are well aware of their existing capacity and the required
level that they need to approach, and they can take the initiative in proceeding ahead,
human resource managers can save time on training needs analysis and personnel
roadmap building. After all, if an organisation wants to be agile, it needs leaders with
an open mindset, and versatile staff.
Kouzes and Posner (2007) affirmed that ‘leaders must pay attention to the capacity of
their constituents to take control of challenging situations and become fully
committed to change, you can’t exhort people to take risks if they don’t also feel safe
[from losing their job]’ (p. 19). Promoting staff autonomy and empowerment,
connecting initiatives, and pushing self-development seem to be viable solutions to
increase people’s commitment to quality assurance and improvement. All in all, as
suggested by Palmer et al. (2009), one of the ways to support and sustain
organisational change is to ‘put in place a new mindset’ (p. 13).
242
As raised in the concluding part of the previous chapter, when the contextual
affecters tend to remain unchanged or are unlikely to change overnight, the
universities’ leaders need to reframe their organisation and readjust their strategies, to
allow for dynamism. The next sections elaborate on reframing and adjusted
strategies.
8.1.2 Resources to facilitate quality assurance implementation
In Chapter 7, one factor identified as having an impact on internal processes and
relating to negative issues in human resource management, is limited resources for
quality assurance implementation. It can be inferred from the interviewed leaders’
perceptions and experiences that quality assurance is not always treated with priority,
and was many times a one-off activity. One possible reason, as previously indicated,
is that the universities have restricted control over their resources. Other reasons are
discussed in the sections that follow.
8.1.2.1 Human resource development: stronger capacity, better commitment
In Chapter 7, some major concerns regarding human resource management at the
case universities were indicated, including: a perception that few people had the
competence and capacity needed for change; heavy staff workloads; overlapping task
allocation; or unequal allocation of responsibilities.
Commenting on what should be done to sustain internal quality assurance, or to
harmonise external and internal quality assurance, many interviewed leaders across
the universities consistently asserted that ‘one important element for successful
change management and quality assurance is high quality human resource’
(Interviews 06, 21, 04, 25, 14, 27, 23). They believed that the sustainability of quality
improvement depends on the improvement of the human resource. Only by such
improvement can the university: 1) enhance institutional capacity; and 2) optimise
243
human resource management, in order to tackle the remaining human resource
problems discussed above (Interviews 06, 21, 04, 25, 14, 27, 23).
Fittingly enough, the development of staff with the expertise and experience required
for change implementation, can be done amidst the process of change
implementation. The top leaders from universities 3, 4 and 6 supported this on-the-
job training approach. As their universities underwent “staff rejuvenation” or the
recruitment of more young employees and/or the designation of junior staff to
management positions, they believed that time and opportunity were critical. Time
and opportunity are needed for young staff to participate in change implementation,
utilise their potential, enhance their overall capacity and strengthen their commitment
to the universities (Interviews 06, 21, 04).
As the top leader from university 3 said:
In order to be able to contribute ideas and efforts to quality improvement, staff
need to acquire a certain level of experience and expertise. Meanwhile the young
staff have to care for many things - further study, more qualifications, teaching
and other academic tasks, earning extra income for their personal life. Time is an
important issue here. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 13)
Regarding opportunities for young staff, universities 3 and 4 leaders similarly shared
their workable solutions. For example, one policy-making leader from university 4
noted that:
Staff contribution depends on how they are treated. So remuneration policy is
worth our concern. If our staff can live their life with their remuneration, without
having to run around moonlighting or doing other part-time jobs, they will feel
secure and will be wholeheartedly committed to the university. (Interview 21-
PM2, p. 20)
244
However, due to systemic constraint, as discussed in Chapter 7, the basic salary
scheme is governmentally controlled. Therefore, the strategies that these universities
adopted in order to generate extra income for their staff is worth considering. As
discussed in Chapter 6, the teachers in university 4 were involved in collaborative
research projects with industries, and their colleagues in university 3 were given
chances to teach in, and research for, MoET projects (Interviews 21, 23, 27).
Another remedial measure to optimise the existing human resource, as experienced
by the leaders from universities 1, 3 and 5, is staff rotation between academic
faculties and administration, or across universities units within the university.
Universities also shared expertise, for example, lecturers with relevant expertise from
university 1 are invited to teach some courses at university 4 (Interviews 05, 06, 19).
According to the top leader of university 1, due to the restricted autonomy of the
rectors, they cannot dismiss underperforming staff34; therefore, staff rotation could be
a compromise (Interview 05-PM1). The top leaders of universities 3 and 5 also
shared their experience of using staff rotation combined with staff retraining to
address either shortages or underperformance (Interviews 06 and 15). Likewise, the
sharing of expertise across universities or disciplines could help with such
circumstances as staff shortages in one university, while another has a staff surplus.
As part of the long-term capacity building plan, university 4 had a human resource
development plan for young teachers, which meant that ‘they do not have to teach
full-load, meanwhile they are provided with opportunities to join research projects, to
go on exchange research programs with the university’s overseas partners, the
university takes risks and invests in these bench-strength initiatives [capacity
building for the next management generation]’ (Interview 23-PI1, p. 11). Similarly,
in university 3, young teachers were involved in research or PD initiatives to help
34 According to the labour code, staff who are on a permanent labour contract can only be dismissed
under specific circumstances.
245
them develop their expertise, hone their skills, and upgrade their professional
profiles. These were intangible assets that benefit both staff and the institution
(Interview 27-PM1).
As mentioned above, in the section on leaders’ promotion of a university-wide
synergy, there were requirements and supporting policies for teachers to pursue
further study on another discipline, or join inter-discipline research teams. This long-
term human resource development solution was expected to increase the versatility of
academic staff and therefore enhance university capacity, as perceived by the
interviewed leaders.
Regarding measures to strengthen staff commitment to the university, the
interviewed leaders across the universities shared numerous techniques that they
adopted, in addition to the core values that they embraced and passionately
exemplified. For instance, more than half of the interviewed leaders from universities
1, 2, 3 emphasised the need to communicate the personnel policies to all newly
recruited staff. This related to the required code of conduct and professionalism, as
well as the supporting system for their capacity development through PD programs
(Interviews 20, 17, 08, 12, 01, 03, 27). Via communication and awareness raising
exercises, as reflected by both levels of leaders, important messages were conveyed
to their staff. These included: ‘make your day at the university a meaningful working
day’ (Interview 20-PI1, p. 15); ‘we need generations who can sacrifice, have
determination and passion for their profession’ (Interview 21-PM2, p. 21); and ‘when
you enter the “game” you need to play fair, or if you cannot carry the heavy load, let
go of it [quit the job and change job]’ (Interview 06-PM1, p. 14). One policy-making
leader from university 3 critically claimed, from his experience, that ‘when staff can
observe that the leaders are working for common benefits, and that if they do good
they will be duly recognised, then staff will be persuaded and willing to contribute’
(Interview 27-PM2, p. 32).
246
Moreover, this leader from university 3 highlighted that ‘due recognition or credit for
staff performance, either periodically, or just for single projects, could promote staff
engagement in those activities that ensure or improve the quality of their teaching or
research’ (Interview 27-PM2, p. 29). This practice echoed the earlier suggestion by
Graetz et al. (2011) that ‘the power of symbolic and substantive actions as catalysts
for changing behaviours and attitudes’ should not be undervalued, and that ‘the
traditional reluctance to recognise and reward individual excellence adversely affect
employee commitment and potential performance’ (p. 154).
One interesting finding from the data analysis relates to affective ways to increase
staff commitment. As experienced by the interviewed leaders (for example,
Interviews 27, 21, 06, 20, 01), the first one is to take advantage of one feature of
Vietnamese culture, that staff loyalty is highly valued, and that staff often stay
committed to an organisation even for their whole life and care for its “ups and
downs”. It also appeared to be easier to engage staff in a quality assurance activity if
there were good personal relationships between the leader and their subordinates.
Therefore, it was considered advisable to create and nurture inter-personal
relationships and the emotional attachment between staff and the institution.
The above described long-term and short-term measures to enhance human resource
capacity and strengthen staff commitment match well with Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) argument that ‘Innovation [organisational change] … affects individuals’
ability to feel effective, valued and in control. Without support, training and a chance
to participate in the process, people become powerful anchors, embedded in the past,
that block forward motion’ (p. 396). The university measures also reflect the essence
of a much earlier statement in organisational change management literature: ‘Long
term solutions to the problem of maintaining adaptiveness to change cannot …
depend on manipulative techniques [over the staff]. On the contrary, they must
depend on helping the individual to develop greater maturity in controlling the
boundary between his own inner world and the realities of his external environment’
247
(Miller & Rice, 1967, quoted in McLennan, 1988, p. 549). In the context of the
current study, Miller and Rice’s long-term solutions refer to human resource capacity
enhancement.
It should also be noted that the provision of new training programs as professional
development opportunities for academic staff aligns with one of Palmer, Dunford and
Akin’s (2009) recommended ways to support and sustain organisational change at the
human resource level.
8.1.2.2 Supporting resources: time, finance and physical resources
Besides human resources, time and finances were mentioned by many interviewed
leaders as necessary for implementing and sustaining quality assurance initiatives.
The following comments from the Rector of university 3 were echoed by many other
leaders from universities 2, 4 and 5, as follows:
At this period, all the member universities, including ours are involved in many
big projects such as project FL2020 of MoET, development project of the
national institution, curriculum renovation project, and many other challenging
tasks. We need time and funding. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 13)
We need resources to realise our improvement plans, for example, we can’t say
that we have improved our educational quality without upgrading the classrooms
and facilities, advancing our curriculum or having grants for research. (Interview
06-PM1, p. 19)
If we want to reduce the teaching load for teachers so that they can spend more
time on doing research, we need financial resource for outsourcing lecturers. We
also need financial resource for upgrading the existing conditions. When staff
are aware of the need to change and improve quality of their work, they require
support in terms of resources, in order to change, for example replacing well-
used equipment and facilities with new ones, or upgrading the classrooms or
248
lecture theatres, all require money. If we don’t have resources, we can’t enlarge
our scope of operation. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 20)
One policy-making leader from university 2, who was the director of the quality
assurance centre, raised the issue that regular funding for quality assurance activities
was required at both national and institutional levels so that these activities could
become a routinised part of university operations (Interview 07-PM1).
While time and funding for quality assurance initiatives represented challenges for
the case universities, as was common in other public universities in Vietnam, as
already indicated in Chapters 5 and 7, a couple of measures were recommended by
the interviewed leaders.
In relation to time, one policy-making leader from university 3 claimed that it is vital
to plan ahead and integrate quality assurance into the teachers’ daily work, to make
quality assurance process-oriented, so as to avoid tasks that are assigned with short
notice (Interview 27-PM2). Another policy-making leader from university 1 similarly
suggested that quality actions should be accumulated through day-to-day work. This
would pre-empt the conflicts between academic faculties and administrative
departments during times of crisis, with too many tasks due at the same time, or extra
loads for one-off accreditations (Interview 08-PM2). Both leaders argued that these
practices could save staff a considerable amount of time when the next accreditation
cycle starts .
At the executive level, several leaders from universities 2, 3, 4 and 6 suggested that
priorities for quality assurance initiatives should be set and planned for step by step
implementation. As such, there are elements that directly contribute to quality
improvement, yet require time for transformation. For example, it is not feasible to
accelerate the time needed for senior teachers to renovate their teaching
methodologies or for junior teachers to produce high quality research. The
249
sustainability of quality assurance depends on the optimisation of the available time
through such step by step implementation. (Interviews 01, 03, 20, 23, 14).
Regarding viable solutions for the finance issue, one policy-making leader from
university 4 shared their success story in raising funds. This was achieved through
collaboration with external stakeholders, rather than as passive fund receivers. It was
and recommended that:
1) each university should integrate the proposed budget for quality assurance
activities in the annual university plan, and 2) each university should
operationalise the umbrella institution’s policy of “one strategic partner for each
member university”35 for fund-raising based on bilateral collaboration with these
strategic partners. (Interview 21-PM2, p. 24)
As noted in Chapter 7, one interviewed leader from university 3 complained that in
many cases, while the budget was available, it was manipulated or improperly used.
This leader argued that the project funding from external sources should be strictly
managed, to prevent the unequal division, or even worse, the manipulation of the
financial resource. Regarding project disbursement in the case universities,
management fees are added on top of the honorarium paid to people who directly
implement the project. There was a perception that there was improper management
of financial resources in university 3 (Interview 27).
Physical resources, including ICT, libraries, facilities and equipment were also
considered by the interviewed leaders as instrumental in the translation of quality
assurance policies into practice. All the top leaders from universities 1, 3 and 4
consistently expressed their expectations with regard to the upgrading of the ICT
system and website. This included the enlarged scope of ICT applications in such
quality assurance initiatives as staff performance evaluation, student evaluation of
35 The umbrella institution helped establish a network of strategic partners, relevant to its member
universities in terms of expertise.
250
teaching and learning, digitisation of learning resources, online student support
services, and intranet for internal communication. Leaders believed that these ICT
applications could enhance transparency, as well as save time and resources
(Interviews 05, 06, 21). Specifically, the university 1 top leader said:
We currently invest in upgrading ICT system and the university website36. I
think the website is a useful tool for management and public relations. If we
make it information-rich we can attract both teachers and students, including
prospective ones. The website also acts as an education gate to assist the
interaction between teachers and students. (Interview 05-PM1, p. 22)
As shown in the above excerpt, it was believed that the upgrading of the ICT system
and university website would facilitate internal communication on quality assurance
activities and requirements, as well as improve the student learning experience.
A policy-maker from university 4 also proposed an ICT-based innovation to improve
performance efficiency and evidence-tracking:
There hasn't been an online or computer-based procedure that helps with staff
performance. If a teacher submits a test late or starts the lesson 15 minutes late,
he will be in trouble. Then how about an admin staff who is supposed to provide
feedback to an issue within 3-5 days but actually doesn't do this timely? I think
there should be computer-based applications that allow for both academic and
admin staff to perform their tasks online. Evidence will be easily traced.
(Interview 21-PM2, p. 12)
It can be inferred from the above excerpt, as well as the preceding perspectives
advocated by these top leaders, that the maintenance of the university website and the
enhanced ICT application could partly address the shortage of time and resources for
quality assurance implementation, especially internally. Although implementing ICT
36 My brief study of all the member universities’ websites during data collection revealed that the
website of university 1 appeared to be the best-designed and most current. It was the only website that
had a two-way link to the umbrella institution’s website.
251
will cost money, the initial investment into ICT establishment could be cost-effective
in the long-term, as time and human resource can be saved.
As for physical resources, such as libraries or learning resource centres, offices or
classrooms, facilities and equipment, major findings were generally identified in the
data analysis of interviews with executive leaders. Leaders from universities 1, 2, 4
and 6 asserted that improvements in physical resources would help sustain the
condition for quality assurance implementation in general, and improve student
learning quality in particular (Interviews 11, 12, 23, 13, 14). The executive leaders
from university 1 both stressed the need to upgrade the university library and
incorporate online library services, as well as access to digitalised courses and
materials (Interviews 11 and 12).
It should be noted, as partly revealed in Chapter 5, that the case universities had
different resource levels and would therefore have different priorities and possibly
different strategies to tackle their problems. The findings presented in this section
provide a point of reference for other public universities in Vietnam, in this regard.
However, there will be financial implications for these. If the financial aspect is not
properly addressed, for example, the public universities keep being granted limited
financial autonomy, these measures would just be “wish lists” and would not be
helpful in real terms.
As discussed in Chapter 3 in relation to organisational change management, time,
finance and physical resources were not considered to be influencing factors in
change implementation (See, for example, Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2009; Anderson
& Anderson, 2001; Graetz et al., 2011). In various studies, although decisions about
the allocation of financial and expertise resources were noted, this resource factor
seems to be submerged by other influencing factors, such as leadership, culture,
resistance, or communication. It is likely that change managers and implementers
only face issues of limited resources in developing contexts, as in the case
252
universities. This explains why the interviewed leaders mentioned physical resources
as a requirement for the implementation and sustaining of quality assurance
initiatives.
8.1.3 Continuous improvement mechanisms to strengthen quality culture
Returning to the quality assurance framework for higher education, as described in
Chapter 3, and the diagram depicting the internal quality assurance mechanism in
place at the case institution, explained in Chapter 7, it can be seen that quality culture
is a vital component. Quality culture has gained prominence in the quality assurance
literature (see, for example, Barnett, 1992; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Harvey &
Stensaker, 2008; Yorke, 2000; Gordon, 2002; The European Universities
Association, 2006). It is also evident in the empirical experience at the case
institution. Being an intangible component, the existence and development of the
quality culture requires support and reinforcement from various elements. Many of
these elements have been discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. In this section, the most
prominent element, the continuous improvement mechanism, is revisited from the
perspectives of the interviewed leaders, with suggestions for strengthening the
desirable quality culture.
8.1.3.1 The application of job descriptions and key performance indicators
The first condition for a continuous improvement mechanism proposed by the policy-
making leaders from universities 2, 3, 4 and 6 was the application of JDs and KPIs in
human resource management. It was argued that there should be clear JDs for each
position in the organisational structure and these should be compatible with specific
internal processes (Interviews 14, 07 and 27). These leaders believed that the JDs
would act as a necessary condition for a job well-performed, whereas the KPIs based
on performance evaluation would function as the sufficient condition for effective
253
human resource management. Regarding this, one university 2 policy-maker believed
that:
The best solution for the time being is having clear roles and responsibilities,
accompanied by a strict award/punishment scheme. It is necessary to encourage
and compliment on jobs well-done, but punishment can be more effective in pre-
empting bad deeds. (Interview 07-PM1, p. 16)
Or, as a university 3 policy-maker viewed it:
I think a system of punishment or incentive would do, for example advanced
salary increase, property provision, certificates of recognition, awards …
recently we have applied a new incentive-punishment scheme based on KPIs,
that is every task a teacher does will be quantified to score, based on their
fulfillments of the teaching load, the research quota, and the PD requirement; as
well as other related academic and community activities. (Interview 27-PM2, p.
32)
Similarly, one policy-making leader from university 4 shared his expectation that
KPI-based evaluation of staff performance should be put into practice. There should
be quantifiable and measurable indicators for evaluation, covering academic and
development activities, and linked to the annual incentive/ bonus income calculation
(Interview 21-PM2). In line with this, the top leader of university 5 stressed that if
staff can see the connection between the assurance of quality and their own benefits,
they would embrace change (Interview 15-PM1).
As indicated in previous chapters, extra income means a lot to the staff in the case
universities. While rewards can be in money form, one type of punishment can be no
or deducted extra income. In this regard, the suggested KPI-based evaluation could
bring about not just symbolic but also directly tangible effects, in persuading staff of
the benefits of the change relating to quality assurance measures. This reflects
254
Kotter’s (1996) observation that ‘culture changes only … after the people see the
connection between the new actions and the performance improvement’ (p. 156).
Another insightful argument is that the recommended application of JDs and KPIs in
human resource management overlaps with one of Palmer, Dunford and Akin’s
(2009) suggested ways to sustain organisational change: ‘Redesigning roles and
redesigning reward system’ (p. 360). It also reflects Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
suggestion that ‘structural patterns [patterns of roles and relationships in the
organisation] need to be revised and realigned to support the new direction’ (p. 396).
The application of JDs and KPI-based performance evaluation, as perceived by many
interviewed leaders across the universities, is likely to improve staff professionalism
and encourage the commitment needed for quality assurance enactment. That is, JDs
and KPIs act as terms of reference with measureable indicators that people can refer
to during task implementation and evaluation (O’Neil & Palmer, 2004). These could
therefore lessen the influence of such aspects of Vietnamese culture as respecting
hierarchical inter-personal relationships, or ignoring misconduct for peace in
harmony. Moreover, this redesigned roles and reward mechanism might gradually
and indirectly resolve the human resource management problems of heavy workloads
and overburdened staff for certain staff or groups.
8.1.3.2 Enabling working condition: right policies, transparent processes, and
professionalism
Another condition for the continuous improvement mechanism to operate to good
effect, as perceived by the interviewed leaders across the universities, is an enabling
working condition. This umbrella term covers the ‘enabling systems and structures
that will sustain the momentum for change - reinforce the change message and
institutionalise the new behaviours’ (Graetz et al., 2011, p. 152). In this study, an
enabling working condition means providing the right policies and transparent
processes.
255
The top leader of university 3 raised his concern that:
We need to be critical about the working condition at our university. Why the
same person who works with high efficiency and professionalism in an
international organisation, would lose both professionalism and motivation when
working with us? It is the right mechanism [supporting working condition] that
we lack. There should be an enabling working condition with the right policies,
transparency and professionalism, an environment that allows for dynamism and
creativity. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 16)
This leader strongly believed that:
If we have an enabling working environment, it is like “birds come to good
land”37. So I believe that we should make changes regarding the environment,
because after all, people make policies and people operate the mechanism.
(Interview 06-PM1, p. 19)
In the same vein, the top leader of university 5 urged for a change in mindset for both
change managers and implementers. As he argued, professionalism was the added
value of quality assurance initiatives, it required improvement in the attitude of
teachers towards students, the attitude of supporting staff towards students, and the
services for students (Interview 15-PM1).
Commenting on the need to provide an enabling working condition for quality
assurance practices, one policy-making leader from university 6 stated that this
enabling working environment should operate on the basis of:
- enough funding for specific activities
- transparent cash flow: is the fund allocated appropriately?
- a team of managers who can sacrifice their benefits and model the
advocated behaviours
37 Vietnamese proverb
256
- real democracy: staff are respected, their voices are heard, their feedback
is processed. (Interview 10-PM2, p. 13)
From another perspective, one policy-making leader from university 1 shared his
viewpoint that people were the most valuable resource; if the working environment
was not supportive enough, this resource could be wasted. This was particularly the
case for teams of intellectuals who would require a supportive working condition .
This leader proposed that:
For the researchers in my faculty, the supporting and professional working
environment in which they could realise all their research plans would outweigh
the remuneration. So that’s what we should do, creating and maintaining an
enabling and empowering environment [providing well-equipped labs, granting
research funds, assisting with administrative paperwork], of course not
exceeding the legal boundary, in order to attract those researchers who are
currently paid several thousand dollars per month overseas, to come back and
work for us. (Interview 8-PM2, p. 18)
The top leader from university 3 shared a well-known anecdote among Vietnamese
managers and leaders, noting that whenever they encountered problems due to
bureaucracy and red-tape, “the guy named mechanism” is blamed, implying that the
system itself is the problem. Yet increasingly, there appears to be more general
acknowledgement of the positive influence that a facilitating environment can have
in change management.
8.1.3.3 Promoting research
Data analysis of the interviews with leaders across the universities, regarding how to
sustain internal quality assurance, revealed another powerful change sustainer. This
was the promotion of collaborative research to strengthen the internal capacity of the
257
institution, in terms of institutional and individual research capacity, and
transformative education.
As analysed in the above sub-sections and indicated in the organisational change
management literature, one of the ways to support and sustain change is through
human resources (see, for example, Ramsden, 1998; Graetz et al., 2011; Palmer et al.,
2009; Anderson & Anderson, 2001). In the case institution, as perceived by all of the
interviewed leaders, the strengthening of the teaching and research capacity of
academic staff is instrumental in internal quality improvement.
First, most of the policy-making leaders, especially those from the universities with
strong research capacity (universities 1, 2, 4 and 5), stressed the need for enhancing
research collaboration between the universities and relevant research institutes. This
collaboration was believed to be mutually beneficial, as the universities could take
advantage of the physical resources of the research institutes and the research
institutes could send staff to the universities for teaching.38
Second, these leaders were advocates for the institution’s strategic decision regarding
the establishment and sustaining of labs and research units within each university, as
well as the promotion of research activities among teachers. According to one policy-
making leader from university 1, labs and research units should function as
independent entities with professional expertise, and there should be a clear
“roadmap” as well as feasible investment plans for these units (Interview 08-PM2, p.
19). One executive leader from university 4 claimed that promoting the conduct of
research in line with international standards, including international publications,
should be a priority in the institutional development plan (Interview 26-PI1, p. 20).
Another executive leader from university 5 emphasised that the universities should
provide teachers with more opportunities to do research and improve expert
knowledge, primarily for the purpose of improving the quality of their teaching. They
38 In order to be eligible for a professorship, researchers at research institutes are required to do a
certain amount of teaching, and supervise PhD students.
258
should be given more opportunities to learn about advanced research and training
methodologies (Interview 19-PI2). The university leaders are consistent in their
belief that research is a pre-requisite for quality improvement, and the inter-
complimentary effects between research and teaching largely contribute to
transformative education (Interviews 21, 26, 12, 11).
One of the recurring themes identified in this study is the inter-connection between
the strategic vision of the case institution to become a regional level research
university, the strategy-driven change (implementing quality assurance initiatives),
and the promotion of research at the enactment level of this strategy. To view the
issue from a broader perspective, the national institution can utilise their research
outcomes for improving teaching quality to meet the requirements of prospective
employers and social demands. As such, they can partly cope with contemporary
criticisms on universities for being, more than ever, ivory towers, isolating
themselves from the needs of the society39.
It should be noted, however, that although research enhancement had been one of the
strategic missions of the case institution, research was not a strength in universities 3
and 6. As described in Chapter 6, the focus of these universities is teacher education.
Although there was no emerging finding on research-related suggestions from the
leaders of these universities, the importance of classroom action research activities
was highlighted by these leaders (Interviews 06, 27, 10, 14).
In short, as can be seen across the institution, especially in the universities with
research strength (universities 1, 2, 4, 5), diversified approaches were applied to
promote research. The applied measures included: integrating research quota in staff
performance evaluation; creating policies that facilitate inter-disciplinary research
projects; investing in the development of young research teams; providing financial
39 This concern was shared in the Sixth Conference on international standard university, held in
Shanghai in November 2015, reported by Ly Pham in the International Education Bulletin, No 25-
2015 (CHEER, 2015).
259
support for staff conducting research or disseminating research outcomes at
international conferences (Interviews 08, 20, 12, 21, 23, 06, 27, 15, 19, 10, 14).
8.1.4 Stakeholder engagement to inform quality improvement needs
Aside from leadership to navigate quality assurance, resources to support
implementation and continuous improvement mechanisms to strengthen the quality
culture, the analysed data also indicated another reinforcing factor: stakeholder
engagement to inform quality improvement needs. The most prominent arguments,
not surprisingly, came from universities 1 and 4, which are the two universities with
strong linkages to external stakeholders.
As discussed in Chapter 6, the engagement of external stakeholders brought
numerous advantages to universities 1 and 4, as well as other member universities.
Among them, as perceived by the policy-making leaders across the universities, the
two most beneficial advantages were: 1) adding resources to the internal capacity;
and 2) informing improvement needs.
When reflecting on their successful experience with external partners, the
interviewed leaders from universities 1 and 4 shared advice about the optimisation of
external resources. According to one policy-making leader from university 4:
if the universities under the national institution could take full advantage of the
external resources, and transform these into their internal energy, the institution,
its member universities, their academic faculty and academic staff will be on a
stronger springboard for the next level. (Interview 21-PM2, p. 18)
All the executive leaders from universities 1 and 4 supported this opinion, as funding
from external stakeholders could be used to support academic work and research in
the faculty. (Interviews 26, 12, 11, 23).
Additionally, the bilateral cooperation between the universities and their external
partners resulted in more opportunities for their students to get exposed to practical
260
hands-on learning experiences. This contributed to the transformative education of
students. More importantly, as claimed by the majority of the interviewees, the
feedback they received from external partners, through collaborative projects and
regular quality assurance related surveys, provided insightful information for such
quality improvement activities as curriculum and course reviews, or internship
coordination (U6 interviews 10, 14; U1 interviews 12, 08; U3 interview 03, 27; U4
interviews 23, 21, 24; U5 interviews 18, 25; U2 interviews 20, 22).
Suggestions for more effective stakeholder engagement included:
There should be a person at each level (national institution/university/faculty) in
charge of this stakeholder engagement, someone who has good networking skills
and can prove potential by gaining funding/projects for the faculty and the
university. There should be a detailed annual or monthly action plan specifying
activities to connect with enterprises, partners or alumni. (Interview 21-PM2, p.
19 &22)
We have a common policy of “one strategic partner [industry or enterprise] for
each member university”, this should be reinforced by having one common
database of external stakeholders for all member universities, as well as common
strategies to attract more partners and widen the network. We should synergise
our efforts in this task. (Interviews 05, 21, 06, 15)
We should also engage the internal stakeholders [e.g. teachers, students].
(Interview 05-PM1, p. 20)
We should activate the role of students as one important stakeholder, by teaching
them well, taking good care of prospective and current students, making them
love the university so in the future they will become committed alumni who
want to pay back to the institution. (Interview 26-PI1, p. 22)
For the time being, when the mechanism is changing and the teachers are
changing, but the students seem to remain passive learners who are driven by
261
many external factors as tuition fees, job opportunities, I think what we need to
do is to help them shape their learning purpose. (Interviews 22 and 24)
It can be inferred from the above findings, as well as from the broader context of
Vietnamese higher education, that engaging external stakeholders serves a multitude
of purposes. First, it fits well with the government’s policy of “socialisation of
education”40. Second, it allows universities to collaborate with industries and
businesses in mutually beneficial projects, thus narrowing the gap between the “ivory
towers” and “real” society. Third, and most important for this study, it helps enhance
institutional capacity in several aspects, and therefore becomes a crucial sustaining
factor for internal quality improvement.
8.1.5 Requirements for quality assurance centres and quality assurance staff
According to the interviewed leaders across the universities, the final way to
reinforce quality assurance practices and make them an integral part of institutional
life, is through the empowerment of the quality assurance centres and the
appointment of specifically selected staff in charge of quality assurance.
As indicated in Chapter 6, representatives from all the case universities expressed
their concern over the operation and function of the quality assurance centres. Four
policy-making leaders from universities 1, 4, 5 and 6, two of whom were directors of
the quality assurance centres, noted that the espousal of quality policies and
measures, and the establishment of quality assurance centres were indicators of the
university leadership’s commitment to quality assurance initiatives. However, this
important step is not sufficient by itself to effect change in educational quality. In
order to properly assist the translation of the espoused policies into actions, the
quality assurance centre should be granted more power and capacity (Interviews 07,
21, 25, 10).
40 Involving all possible socio-economic sectors to contribute to the national education
262
Specifically, one policy-maker from university 6 argued that:
Empowering the quality assurance centre also means that the personnel for this
centre should be selected to make sure that they have professionalism and
expertise to a certain level. These people get exposed to all aspects of the
university’s operations and they should be sensible and critical enough to
identify or prevent problems if any. (Interview 10-PM2, p. 17)
The above excerpt aligns with Schein’s (1992, 2010) claim that the selection of staff
constitutes ‘one of the most subtle yet potent ways through which cultural
assumptions get embedded and perpetuated’ (p. 243). Palmer et al. (2009) also
suggested that staff selection decisions should be linked to change objectives in order
to reinforce organisational change. Although these authors may refer to selection at a
broader level of human resource recruitment, their suggestions fit in the context of
quality assurance personnel.
The director of the quality assurance centre from university 5 shared a similar
opinion regarding the required quality assurance staff-in-charge. She asserted that:
The performance in all three areas of operation [teaching, research and
administrative service] will affect the quality culture, so there should be staff-in-
charge [of quality assurance specifically] for each area, and at unit level there
should be an internal quality assurance system, with contact points, for example,
at faculty level or division level. (Interview 25-PM2, p. 19)
Many other interviewed leaders believed that when the quality assurance centre is
empowered and its expert capacity is enhanced, the centre can properly undertake its
major tasks, such as: 1) being instrumental in policy enactment by bridging the gap
between leadership strategy and implementation; 2) providing consultation to
academic faculties regarding program accreditation; and 3) producing quality
handbooks with guidelines and instructions for quality policy enactment (Interviews
21, 25, 27, 15, 06), to name a few.
263
It can be inferred that when the quality assurance centre functions well and addresses
external quality assurance requirements, and the internal quality assurance systems at
unit level also operate to make sure continuous improvement takes place, external-
internal quality assurance synchronisation would result in quality assurance practices
embedded in university life.
8.2 Accountability and improvement in harmony
As briefly indicated in Chapter 6, the policy-making leaders across the universities,
with the strongest voices coming from universities 3, 5 and 6, believed that
accountability could be a consequence of continuous improvement. This belief was,
therefore, translated into internal organisational improvement embedded in quality
assurance practices.
Data analysis revealed another prominent finding that appears to confirm the
transformative shift of quality assurance priorities from compliance-based and
product-oriented quality assurance to improvement-led and process-oriented quality
assurance. Both levels of leaders representing the case universities agreed on one
crucial point. This was that in order to achieve the long-term strategic goal of their
national university (to become a regional then international standard university), they
needed to enhance their internal capacity, and this needed to be done via internal
quality improvement of the core educational operations (Interviews 06, 03, 08, 12,
07, 15-, 21, 26, 10, 04). A policy-making leader from university 5 viewed quality
assurance as a self-development or evolution process for her university, from
addressing the externally imposed requirements for national accountability, to
developing their own need to raise their educational quality to regional and
international standards (Interview 25-PM2, p. 14). This need can be equated to “self-
actualisation”,41 if Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is applied to organisations, and fits
41 The motivation to maximise one’s own potential and possibilities.
264
with Torbert’s (1991) strategy to balance self-transformation and society
transformation.
Intriguingly, many among these interviewed leaders held a balanced view regarding
the priority for accountability or improvement. For example, as the top leader from
university 3 critically observed, that the above-mentioned priority shift (from
compliance-led to improvement-led quality assurance) was not a single linear
process. Instead it involved a significant change comprising a series of manageable
change portions, requiring the shift of efforts and resources to attend to specific
quality assurance initiatives at specific times. This leader gave an interesting
analogue:
The combination of accountability and improvement should look like the Korean
flag, displaying the Yin and the Yang [as in the figure below]. At a specific
point, the university may focus more on accountability, as required for a
program accreditation for example, and less on improvement activities. At
another point, the scenario is opposite. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 17)
Figure 11: The Yin-Yang symbol
Likewise, one policy-making leader from university 6 acknowledged that ‘keeping
what we have [internal capacity] and what they need [social and market demands] in
265
harmony is a big task. In specific situations, at specific times, one end of this
continuum would outweigh the other end’ (Interview 10-PM2, p. 12). This leader
believed that quality assurance had a regulatory role between external requirements
and internal capacity, helped identify the improvement needs for the university and
stimulated internal quality enhancement.
The above-quoted policy-making leader from university 3 also asserted that they
needed both accountability and improvement, although ultimately improvement
would outweigh accountability. He said:
We exist so as to serve the society, that is why we need to be accountable for the
society, for stakeholders, and for our students. In the first place, we need
accountability in order to understand better where we are, where we want to get
to, and how we can get there. After that we need improvement to bring us there.
(Interview 06-PM1, p. 17)
This excerpt can be linked to the above-mentioned concept of Yin-Yang by adding a
horizontal axis, displaying the progression of time for quality assurance
implementation. As can be seen in the figure below, at the beginning of the quality
assurance implementation timeline, greater priority is given to external quality
assurance. The Yang is more dominant, with more effort and resources invested into
such compliance activities as program level accreditation and institutional level
accreditation, and budget is allocated to the instalment of quality assurance centres,
quality assurance policies and procedures. As the university’s work in quality
assurance progresses, the cumulative effect of the expertise and experience gathered,
and the system and structures established, as well as the improvement needs
identified through the change process, contribute to the reinforcement and
sustainability of change. This is when the focus and priority shift to internal quality
assurance and the Yin is more dominant.
266
Figure 12: Applying the Yin-Yang principle in quality assurance
Further implications can be drawn from this Yin-Yang model. First, the principle of
Yin and Yang in harmony, one of the core values of Asian cultures, has become more
popular in recent studies in organisational change, organisational performance and
organisational culture (see, for example, Fang, 2012; Jing & Van de Ven, 2014; Law
& Kesti, 2014). Therefore, it fits nicely with this study. Second, the curving visual
display of the Yin and Yang allows for the representation of flexibility and
dynamism in the allocation of efforts and resources in both external and the internal
quality assurance. The circle boundary represents the complete system in which the
external quality assurance and the internal improvement operate in harmony.
Harmony in this case should be interpreted as maintaining a complementary status,
rather than an equal 50:50 division between each component, as the totality depicted.
267
In some usages of Yin and Yang, Yin represents feminine or the inside, while Yang
represents masculine or the outside. In this study, Yang is selected to represent
external quality assurance and Yin is selected to represent internal quality assurance.
All in all, as noted by one policy-making leader from university 6, ‘improvement is
important, but accountability should not be overlooked’ (Interview 04-PM1, p. 20).
Accountability can be an inevitable consequence when internal improvement is
vigorous. Yet, when internal capacity is strong, accountability is needed so that the
university can reaffirm its quality and status in a competitive market. Both employers
and prospective students now demand such quality.
8.3 Further discussion
As evident in the literature and discussed in Chapter 2, quality assurance in higher
education has become an inevitable institutional change that universities need to
implement in order to survive and thrive in a globally competitive environment.
Nevertheless, as argued by some scholars in the field, the externally driven quality
assurance initiatives may encourage a culture of compliance or even concealment,
and universities may exhibit resistance when the initiatives are not aligned with their
deep-rooted values, beliefs and traditions (see, for example, Brennan, 1995; Newton,
2002).
In the case universities, compliance, concealment and resistance were not common
responses and the factors inhibiting quality assurance implementation were identified
and managed accordingly. To a large extent, the universities in this study succeeded
in finding ways to sustain this institutional change. In coping with the constraining
factors, especially when the affecters (context and culture) tended to persist, they
reframed their policies and structures and applied elastic strategies of pushing here,
stretching there or co-existing with the status quo.
268
Commenting on the need for organisations to sustain change, Palmer, Dunford and
Akin (2009) claimed that ‘sustaining change is necessary to ensure that sometime
after they are implemented, things do not quietly drift back to how they used to be.
Sustaining change is about how to make it stick, how to make it a core feature of how
work will occur’ (p. 13). The major findings presented in this chapter reflect how the
case universities realigned their quality assurance policies and practices, mobilised
all possible resources, and optimised their systems, aiming ultimately at
strengthening their internal quality assurance. As all the interviewed leaders
perceived, having a sustainable and robust internal quality assurance mechanism
represents a positive step towards enhanced institutional capacity and
competitiveness. Quality assurance, whether externally imposed or internally driven,
would then function as a means to an end.
To summarise the process adopted to manage the change represented by quality
assurance initiatives, the top leader from university 3 said:
Any organisation has to face resistance and inertia when firstly introducing a
new change. The important thing is that we have to issue right policies, share
and communicate the change to people, clarify their concerns so that people start
to change their actions. When the implementation is smooth with good results,
the change will become normal practice, and then become embedded in the
organisational culture. (Interview 06-PM1, p. 16)
This excerpt aligns with Pfeffer’s (1992) “recipe” for organisational change
management, which is: ‘developing a strongly shared vision or organisational
culture’ so that people ‘share a common set of goals, a common perspective on what
to do and how to accomplish it, and a common vocabulary that allows them to
coordinate their behaviour’ (p. 25).
Among the main components of the quality assurance framework adopted by the case
universities - leadership and management; internal processes; cooperation and
269
collaboration; quality culture; stakeholder engagement - most components appear to
have an impact on the overall daily operation of the university, not just quality
assurance. These components are long-standing and often receive priority. The
components/sub-components that have direct impact on quality assurance
implementation are quality culture, stakeholder engagement and collaborative
learning. Whether or not the universities can embrace the approach of “improvement
with accountability as a result”, and develop into an academic learning organisation
to sustain the change, would depend on these core components of quality culture,
stakeholder engagement and collaborative learning.
However, in times of political crisis or shortage of resources, these components
would be put aside so priority can be given to other urgent issues. This would be a
predictable scenario for Vietnamese public universities where resources are limited,
the administrative system is cumbersome, and the leaders either lack vision or care
more about maintaining their positions. When limited resources and unfavourable
mechanisms are used as excuses for not trying to do things, not trying to improve a
situation, the choice of ‘[making] fewer enemies and [being] less likely to embarrass
ourselves … is a prescription for both organisational and individual failure’ (Pfeffer,
1992, p. 345). In these cases, internal improvement would be submerged by symbolic
compliance.
As discussed above, some components, although less long-standing than such
components as leadership and management, or internal processes, have direct impact
on the sustainability of the quality assurance initiative. Among these, quality culture,
a vital ingredient for successful organisational management and change management,
proves to be the most instrumental sustainer and has a central role in supporting,
reinforcing and sustaining the quality assurance initiative. The diagram below
visualises the effect of sustained quality assurance via the strengthening of the quality
culture, as exercised at the case universities. As also evident in the literature (see, for
example, Graetz et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2009; Anderson & Anderson, 2001;
270
Salleh & Huang, 2011), these advocated actions and behaviours appear to create the
right prescription for making change “stick”.
Figure 13: How quality assurance is sustained via the strengthening of a quality culture
The findings presented in this chapter highlight the measures and strategies applied
by the case universities to reinforce and sustain quality assurance initiatives.
Substantially, the nature of the quality assurance initiative was transformed from an
externally-imposed change to an internal, strategy-driven change. In other words, the
universities took ownership of the change, reinforced it and sustained it, making it no
longer a “change” but allowing it to ‘seep into the bloodstream’ of the institutional
life and become normal practice (Palmer et al. 2009, p. 358).
271
It should be noted here that the approaches discussed in this chapter may not
represent the perfect recipe or prescription for all public universities in Vietnam or in
similar developing country contexts. Quality assurance is not purely a nice uniform,
i.e., a nice one-size-fits-all approach to have. Individual universities need to self-
assess and work out the most viable way to make it fit, i.e., making quality assurance
work in their context. As implicit in the findings presented in this chapter, not all
approaches in the case universities were the same; there is no perfect framework for
all. This is because several structural and cultural elements may have been long-
established and could not be easily manipulated or removed, even in the name of
“approved policy”. The successful adoption of a quality assurance framework
depends largely on the existing capacity of individual universities, a capacity that
requires time and effort to be enhanced.
The ultimate purpose of the quality assurance initiative is to help universities better
themselves. Therefore, it should be viewed as an internally-driven change. Symbolic
compliance or concealment should not be desirable practices, no matter how much
they appear to improve the external image. In the end, it is true quality that counts.
Conclusion
In Chapters 6 and 7, current practices in quality assurance implementation at the case
universities were presented. The divergence in terms of focus on certain components
of the externally imposed quality assurance framework was interpreted in light of
organisational theories and frameworks. The possible factors that enable or obstruct
the implementation of this institutional change were analysed, taking into account the
possible interaction among certain factors. In this chapter, the substantial findings of
the study were presented on how the universities reinforced and sustained the change
by reframing their policies, realigning roles and systems, and optimising internal and
external resources, while addressing identified hindrances.
272
It can be inferred from the findings presented in this chapter, as well as in Chapters 6
and 7, that quality assurance is an instrumental institutional change that helps
systemise all the components needed for the improvement of educational quality in
public higher education. It requires the synchronisation of all internal units and the
connection of a multitude of driving forces to sustain this change so that it becomes
embedded in the institutional culture. It can be concluded that quality assurance has
been one of the most comprehensive strategy-driven changes in Vietnamese higher
education to date, affecting all the core educational operations of the university.
273
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the major findings and conclusions of the study.
The first section provides a brief review of the research design and theoretical
framework of the study, followed by a summary of the key empirical findings,
corresponding to the research questions posed in Chapter 1. The following section
presents the theoretical, methodological and practical implications drawn from the
study. Finally, limitations of this study and recommendations for further research are
discussed.
9.1 Research design and theoretical framework revisited
The literature review revealed the widespread application of quality assurance in
higher education and the range of studies conducted on this issue. However, there are
still few studies on how public universities in developing countries adopt quality
assurance initiatives and implement their practices, in contexts that differ from those
of developed countries where quality assurance was initiated. This study has
investigated a Vietnamese national institution and its six member universities, with
the aim of filling part of this literature gap.
The initial research problem that guided the study was how public universities in
Vietnam develop their external and internal quality assurance systems, in order to
address the system level requirements while enhancing their internal capacity. To
facilitate data collection and analysis, the research problem was broken into specific
research questions, as re-introduced in the succeeding section.
274
The conceptual framework for the study was developed based on the literature on
quality assurance, combined with other organisational and change management
theories. This combination was based on the argument that quality assurance should
be viewed as an important institutional change.
Within an overarching interpretivist paradigm, a case study methodology was
adopted for this study. In-depth interviews with three levels of senior management in
the chosen Vietnamese universities were employed to gather qualitative data for the
study, as well as a review of relevant documents. The major empirical findings of the
study are summarised in the section that follows.
9.2 Summary of major findings
This section presents the empirical findings identified by data analysis and
interpretation as presented in the preceding chapters. These findings provide
insightful views on the issues embedded in the research questions.
9.2.1 The current situation of quality assurance implementation at the case
universities
Research question 1: How are the case study universities conducting their quality
assurance?
1.1 What are the key components of their quality assurance frameworks?
1.2 What are the possible explanations for the discrepancies among the
universities’ quality assurance practices?
The first key finding related to the process that the case institution and its member
universities adopted in order to establish their quality assurance systems and
operating mechanisms. Initially, the case institution and its member universities
adopted quality assurance that was driven by the external environment, in the form of
legislation. Their ministry, the MoET, paved the way for all public universities by
275
establishing a legal and regulatory framework for formal and explicit quality
assurance at both the national and institutional levels. This included the establishment
of a policy-making unit within the ministry, GDETA, and a system of instruments,
including sets of standards and criteria, and guidelines for implementation. These
system level quality assurance considerations aligned with the Asia-Pacific region
higher education quality assurance framework (APQN), with Chiba principles
providing an agreed reference point for consistency in quality assurance in the
region. As such, the quality assurance system was meant to comprise both internal
and external components, with the former considered the foundation of continuous
improvement and the latter aimed at compliance and accountability.
The second key finding related to the quality assurance framework(s) that the case
universities adopted. Regarding their formal external quality assurance, there was
convergence across the member universities. They all followed the accreditation plan
initially imposed by the ministry, and implemented the quality assurance initiative at
the external level.
Later on, with their enhanced awareness, the case universities took the challenge to
gradually strengthen their capacity through internal quality assurance practices. The
espoused policy at the institutional level was to establish viable internal quality
assurance systems based on Chiba principles. However, due to their divergent
starting points (their existing conditions and varied quality assurance experience) and
the organisational theories they adopted, the universities appeared to vary in the level
of effort, time and resources they invested in building their internal quality assurance
system. As a result, their internal quality assurance systems, on one hand, seemed to
be consistent with existing quality assurance frameworks globally, and covered such
recommended components as leadership and management, quality culture,
stakeholder engagement, internal processes, and cooperation and collaboration; on
the other hand, however, they differed in terms of the level of intensity and efficiency
when these component were operationalised.
276
By combining Manning’s (2013) organisational theories in higher education, and
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) organisational reframing approaches, it became possible
to explain the discrepancies in the case universities’ quality assurance
implementation. First, those universities adopting a bureaucracy theory or structural
approach (universities 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) commonly had long-term strategic goals and
plans with quality assurance as one important component. They had well-organised
systems of academic and administration units and sub-units, plus supporting units
and centres, as well as systematised internal processes, policies and procedures.
Second, the universities that adopted collegium theory or a human resource approach
(universities 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) promoted cooperation and collaboration, and were
either highly unified or growing universities. They could, therefore, do well in two
aspects of quality assurance: stakeholder engagement, and cooperation and
collaboration. However, as these universities had differences in the nature of their
offered programs, and in their connections with business and industry, universities 1,
4 and 5 proved to be stronger at stakeholder engagement. Additionally, universities 1,
3, 4 and 5 adopted both bureaucracy and collegium theories, therefore their human
resource approach to improvement was evident in such areas as teacher training
programs, PD programs and participation encouragement.
Third, the universities that applied the cultural theory or a symbolic frame
(universities 1, 2 and 3) were bigger and older universities, with well-established
organisational cultures. Their deep-rooted values and beliefs, their long-lasting norms
and rituals relating to quality across all core educational operations were perceived to
have a positive impact on the formation and reinforcement of the required quality
culture.
Last, only one university (university 2) aligned with the organised anarchy theory or
the political prism. This university was particularly affected by environmental
change; many of their programs became downsized so income from tuition and the
277
quality of student entrants were of major concern. To address this environmental
vulnerability, university 2 combined their top-down management (bureaucracy
theory adoption), and their long-established culture (cultural theory adoption): top-
down management to impose quality assurance P&P and long-established culture to
involve staff in quality assurance activities and strengthen their commitment.
The major findings of the study also suggest that there was no significant difference
at the policy espousal level; instead, differences emerged at the operational level.
There were a number of reasons for this. First, public universities in Vietnam had to
comply with policies and requirements from the government and the MoET, and this
compliance was reinforced by the political power of the communist party. Second,
being one of the two flagship national universities aiming at regional standards, the
top leaders at the institution level and the universities shared their assigned
commitment to quality enhancement. At the enactment level, the group of
universities that adopted bureaucracy, collegium and cultural theories (universities 1,
3, 4 and 5) tended to perform better. Within each individual university, there were
some mismatches between the espoused policy and the enactment/experience levels
in universities 1, 2, 3 and 4.
9.2.2 Possible enablers and inhibitors impacting the quality assurance
implementation at the case universities
Research question 2: What are the possible factors that impact on the quality
assurance implementation at the case universities?
2.1 What are the possible factors that facilitate quality assurance
implementation at the case universities?
2.2 What are the possible factors that hinder quality assurance
implementation at the case universities?
The first facilitating factor was the human one. Transformed staff behaviour and
enhanced awareness, as result of quality assurance immersion, could facilitate
278
cooperation and collaboration, and support leadership and management to
accomplish agreed-upon missions.
The factors that facilitate the implementation of the quality assurance initiatives
include the following:
o Effective HRM: It appeared that universities with comprehensive HRM
measures (universities 1, 3, 4 and 5), had more advantages in both quality
compliance and quality improvement.
o Enabling environment for continuous improvement: First, the findings
suggest that the enabling mechanism consisted of two components: (1)
existing systems of internal processes and reward/punishment; and (2) the
accompanying mechanisms of monitoring and evaluation, with supporting
functions. Second, such intangible collegial factors as ‘mutual trust’,
‘openness’, and ‘sharing and caring’ appear to positively affect both team
cooperation and individual performance. Third, it was noticeable that all the
member universities, to different degrees, reconceptualised their core values
and reframed their future goals, in order to regenerate their quality culture, re-
energise the workforce, and embrace new challenges.
o Collaborative learning: Several types of collaborative learning were
conducted across the case universities, adding to staff capacity enhancement
and supporting quality assurance practices. These included professional
development programs (universities 1 and 3); inter-faculty professional
rotation (universities 4 and 5); collaborative research and involvement of
junior teachers in research projects (universities 1, 2, 4, and 5); as well as the
promotion of student research (all universities).
o Exemplary leadership: The findings of the study indicated that Kouzes and
Posner’s (2007) five exemplary leadership practices - model the way, inspire
a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the
heart - were in place at the case universities, and were perceived as driving
279
forces for the realisation of Middlehurst’s (1997) leadership dimensions for
quality assurance.
o Support from key stakeholders: The tangible and intangible resources
provided by external stakeholders from international and national industries
and businesses, the support from alumni, and current students, were perceived
as important assets for quality assurance implementation.
The findings of the study revealed two main categories of inhibitors to quality
assurance: human factors and organisational factors.
The human constraining factors included student issues, teacher issues, and resistance
to quality assurance implementation. The main student issues included the lack of:
learner autonomy; clear learning objectives; study skills; and professional soft skills.
These impeded the transformation of student learning. The main teacher issues
included the different perspectives towards quality, resulting in lenient assessment
approach, and the lack of competence needed for quality improvement initiatives.
The resistance to quality assurance came from three main groups: (1) seniors, (2)
those teachers who refused to participate due to their inertia or pragmatism, and (3)
young staff under short-term contract. The reaction from these groups included
avoidance approach, completing tasks to a minimal level, or spreading criticisms via
social networks. These human factors were perceived to restrain the operation of
such quality assurance components as cooperation and collaboration, and quality
culture.
The organisational constraining factors included the following:
o HRM issues: The biggest HRM challenges facing the universities were
associated with heavy workloads and tight budgets. The consequences of staff
shortages or overwork undermined the implementation of quality
improvement initiatives. The current staff performance evaluation and
280
accompanying reward mechanisms were also perceived as focusing more on
administrative compliance matters than on academic improvement. This
demotivated high-performing staff, affecting the sustainability of change.
o Limited resources for quality assurance implementation: The biggest
challenge to ensure and improve educational quality related to the
incompatibility between the available physical resources for research,
teaching and learning, versus the requirements for increased research and
credit-based education quality.
o Conflicts in organisation: All the three types of conflicts (vertical, horizontal
and cultural), as categorised by Bolman and Deal (2008), evidently existed in
universities 1, 2, 3 and 4. These conflicts, to varying extents, hindered quality
assurance implementation.
o Affecters (context and Vietnamese culture): The key findings of the study
showed the remarkable influence of the contextual affecters on the
implementation of quality assurance initiatives. At the society level, the
mismatch between the social demand for mass education and employees with
degrees, and the state policy of prioritising basic sciences and elite education
made quality assurance a challenge for the universities. At the government
and ministry levels, the legal constraints relating to benchmarking across
public universities, the financial autonomy of the universities, and
remuneration policies, appeared to impede quality assurance sustainability. At
the institution level, the quality assurance initiatives themselves generated
more pressure and increased workloads for all administrative departments and
related faculties. As for the influence of Vietnamese culture on quality
assurance implementation and sustainability, the findings indicated such
features as the farming culture, hierarchical interpersonal relationships, peace
in harmony, and achievement-obsession.
281
Based on the above key findings, some further arguments could be made regarding
the quality assurance frameworks in place at the universities. These frameworks
comprised the human element (leaders, staff, stakeholders), the system or structure
element (internal processes, quality culture), and the internal-external collaboration
element (stakeholder engagement, cooperation and collaboration). As identified, this
structure element was impacted by powerful driving forces, such as staff awareness
and commitment, the enabling environment for continuous improvement, exemplary
leadership, effective HRM and support from external stakeholders.
Inevitably, there were pulling forces that undermined the operationalisation of the
quality assurance mechanism. Most of these inhibitors were identified by the
executive leaders, who offered perspectives from both policy enactment and
experience. For example, it was their responsibility to cascade the desirable quality
assurance practices down to the grassroots level and, in this process, they could feel
the top-down pressure as well as the bottom-up resistance.
Regarding the constraining factors perceived by the executive leaders, two key
inferences can be made from the major findings. First, the three factors - conflicts,
resistance to quality assurance, and affecters (context and culture) - appeared to have
a direct impact on several components of the quality assurance mechanism. Second,
some pulling forces stemmed from the two factors over which the universities had
limited control - affecters and limited resources.
In short, while the enablers provided power to the quality assurance mechanisms, the
inhibitors should not be overlooked or underestimated.
9.2.3 The essential conditions for sustaining quality assurance initiatives
Research question 3: What are the essential conditions for a sustainable quality
assurance mechanism, from the perspectives of the interviewed leaders?
The third group of empirical findings provided answers to the last research question
282
on the essential conditions for sustaining the quality assurance initiatives.
The key findings of the study indicated that the case universities could sustain quality
assurance initiatives by enhancing their internal quality assurance mechanism. In this
process, the possible factors that facilitated or impeded quality assurance
implementation were addressed while the operations of the key components of the
internal quality assurance mechanism were refined.
First, the role of leadership continued to be vital in navigating quality assurance
implementation in the case universities towards the strategic goals of the national
institution. At the same time, strategic planning embedded with quality assurance
enabled the universities’ leaders to see new possibilities, create new opportunities,
and seek alternatives when coping with constraining factors.
Second, the findings showed that in order to sustain their quality assurance activities,
the universities needed to build the capacity of their workforce and strengthen their
commitment. This was done through formal training, collaborative research
opportunities, and on-the-job training, especially for young staff, amidst the process
of change implementation. The universities also optimised existing resources by such
measures as staff rotation, and developed long-term plans for capacity enhancement,
with reinforcing policies.
In addition to human resources, time and finance were perceived as necessary for
implementing and sustaining quality assurance initiatives. As indicated from the
findings discussed in Chapter 8, the challenges of having adequate time and money
for quality assurance activities were partly addressed by the case universities. For
example, quality actions were planned and embedded in daily operations, to pre-empt
conflicts during times of crisis (e.g. gathering a large amount of evidence for
accreditation within a short time); and quality assurance initiatives were planned and
prioritised for step by step implementation, in order to optimise the available time.
283
Third, the key findings of the study highlighted another set of measures adopted by
the case universities in order to foster and sustain the quality assurance initiatives by
ensuring a continuous improvement mechanism to support quality culture. Detailed
measures are as follows:
o The application of JDs and KPIs: It was believed that the JDs would act as a
primary condition, whereas the KPI-based performance evaluation would
function as a supporting condition for effective HRM.
o Process-oriented quality assurance: It was suggested that the ongoing
monitoring and evaluation of core educational activities, as well as the
constant follow-up of improvement plans, contributed to the enhancement of
institutional capacity as well as individual capacity.
o Enabling environment: Quality assurance implementation and sustainability
required engaging policies and transparent internal processes.
o Collaborative learning: The promotion of collaborative learning and research
strengthened institutional and individual research capacity, and transformative
education.
Fourth, the major findings of the study showed another reinforcing measure that the
case universities implemented: engaging stakeholders to inform quality improvement
needs. Besides such advantages as added resources for enhanced internal capacity or
practical experience for students’ transformative education, the feedback from
external partners through collaborative projects and regular surveys, provided
insightful information for such quality improvement activities as curriculum and
course reviews, or internship coordination.
Last, the findings of the study suggested that within each case university, the quality
assurance centre should be empowered and its expert capacity enhanced. This would
allow the centre to undertake its major tasks more effectively, particularly making
policy, providing consultation, and navigating quality assurance activities.
284
By enhancing their internal quality assurance, the case universities could foster and
sustain quality assurance initiatives. At the same time, they could satisfactorily
address the external quality assurance requirements from the national level. A viable
solution for quality assurance implementation might be the adoption of a situational
approach, as reflected in the Yin-Yang concept. That is, the university should focus
on accountability or improvement depending on the availability of resources and the
timing of the quality assurance activities.
The major findings also suggest that among the key components of the quality
assurance framework, quality culture, stakeholder engagement and collaborative
learning appeared to be the dependent variables that had a direct impact on quality
assurance implementation. However, these would be put aside in times of political
crisis or resource shortages. Leaders in this study believed that quality culture,
stakeholder engagement and collaborative learning components, determined whether
the universities could embrace the approach of “improvement with accountability as
a result”, or develop into academic learning organisations by sustaining quality
assurance initiatives.
9.3 Implications
9.3.1 Methodological implications
There are a few methodological implications that this study can offer. First, the
technique applied in the data collection proved to work well. That is, the interview
questions were modified after the first round of interviews (covering all six
universities) and scaffolding questions were added to explore further how
collaborative research and learning were promoted in the universities. This was
because in the first round of interviews, the leaders from universities 1, 2, 4 and 5
touched on the issue of collaborative research as it was extensively practised in their
universities.
285
Second, having a literature-informed framework for investigation seemed to be a
time saving, content focused technique. In addition, having a number of theoretical
lenses through which data can be interpreted was important. As long as the researcher
can utilise the inter-complementary aspects of the different theories, the depth of the
discussion can be enhanced.
One valuable lesson that I have learnt through the conduct of the study is that doing
research is truly an interactive learning by doing process. It requires the researcher to
go back and forth during the process, identify the recurring themes, manipulating the
tools at hand, making changes as needed and, above all, developing a consistent
thread throughout the thesis.
9.3.2 Theoretical implications
The case study was a national institution in the north of Vietnam. It was a multiple
case as the institution comprised six member universities. Three levels of leaders
were interviewed: the national policy-making level, the university policy-making
level and the university executive one. Throughout the study, the five component
quality assurance framework - leadership and management, internal processes,
cooperation and collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and quality culture - was
used for investigation as well as organising content in the findings and discussion
presented in Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
As indicated in the earlier chapters of the thesis, there is still a concern in the
literature whether a universal quality assurance framework is needed and suits all
contexts. In this study, the findings suggest that the inclusion of collaborative
learning, the essence of Dill’s (1999) academic learning organisation, into the quality
assurance framework, is needed for internal improvement and sustaining quality
assurance initiatives.
286
In the design phase and data collection of the study, the researcher employed the
organisational theories for higher education, developed by Manning (2013) and the
above-mentioned five component quality assurance framework. However, as the data
analysis unfolded, the literature review was updated, taking into special account
organisational and change management theories. This was because it was recognised
that quality assurance initiatives should be treated as important organisational
change. As a result, data analysis was conducted under the additional lenses of
Bolman and Lee’s (2008) organisational reframing theories, the three levels of
change management (espousal, enactment and experience), and the change
management process (adoption, implementation, and sustainability) (see, for
example, Graetz et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2009; Kotter, 2002). The figure below
provides an overview of the theories applied in this study.
The employment of both quality assurance and organisational and change
management theories provided the researcher with a multitude of lenses through
which thought-provoking findings could be uncovered. Specifically, these lenses
allowed for the examination of the current situation of quality assurance
implementation at the case universities; the differences and nuances as per the three
levels of espousal, enactment and (somewhat) experience among the case
universities; the possible influencing factors on quality assurance implementation;
and the possible measures to make quality assurance initiatives sustainable.
Interestingly, the major findings of the study appear to be largely consistent with
various key studies on organisational management (for example, Manning, 2013;
Sporn, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2008), organisational change management (for
example, Kezar, 2000; Kotter, 2002; Graetz et al., 2011), and quality assurance
frameworks (for example, Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2007; Dill, 1999; Harvey &
Knight, 1996).
287
Figure 14: Overview of the theories application for the study
288
As previously discussed, the extant quality assurance literature mainly provided
frameworks and models for quality assurance in developed country contexts.
There was a lack of empirical studies about developing countries, especially on
such areas as possible enablers and inhibitors for quality assurance
implementation, or how to sustain the quality assurance initiative as a vital
institutional change. Therefore, my contribution to the literature includes building
knowledge about existing quality assurance frameworks for higher education
internationally, by identifying influencing factors, including those factors that
mainly exist in developing country contexts, such as limited resources or context
and culturally specific factors. The extended quality assurance framework
provided in this thesis includes the main influencing factors as well as an
understanding of the interaction among these factors, as discussed in Chapter 7.
By addressing the issues that are specifically faced by public universities in a
developing country, in this case Vietnam, the extended framework provides a
useful reference for quality assurance policy-makers and implementers in similar
contexts.
Moreover, as there are no studies that examine quality assurance in higher
education through the prism of organisational management theories, including
change management theories, this study adds another contribution to literature.
Unlike other studies, this research illustrates that quality assurance initiatives
should be treated as instrumental institutional change and examines the possible
implications for sustaining this change, especially in developing contexts.
Another theoretical contribution of the study is that it challenges the existing
concern about the power tension between accountability and improvement (see,
for example, Brennan & Shah, 2000b; Harvey, 1995; Harvey & Newton, 2007;
Shah & Jarzabkowski, 2013; Westerheijden, 1999). The findings of the study
indicate that maintaining this power tension was necessary in order to prevent the
investment of all resources into compliance while neglecting internal
improvement, or vice versa. The power tension between accountability and
289
improvement, similar to organisational conflicts and resistance to change, does
not need to be crushed or removed.
9.3.3 Practical implications
This study offers several findings with practical implications for quality assurance
in higher education. These are specifically applicable for the adoption,
implementation and sustainability of quality assurance initiatives, as an influential
institutional change, in the setting of public universities in a developing country
context.
From the findings presented in Chapters 6 and 7, implications for other public
universities in Vietnam can be drawn. In order to comply with the MoET’s
quality assurance requirements while having little experience and limited budget,
Vietnamese public universities could adopt the approach applied by the case
institution. That is, starting with external quality assurance, accumulating
experience and expertise through the accreditation process, establishing needed
systems and structures, training people and mobilising resources, using the
assessment criteria and standards, as well as accreditation reports, as a frame of
reference to self-assess where they are, then map where they expect to get to, and
identify their improvement needs. These specified improvement needs could then
inform the focal areas for internal improvement.
As revealed in this study, interactional factors led to differences in the quality
assurance implementation and their internal quality assurance mechanisms in the
case universities. These factors included the current contexts of the universities,
their available resources, the supporting mechanism of internal processes and
procedures, and their adopted organisational management theories. By
implication, despite the fact the all public universities would adopt the same
external quality assurance framework as imposed by the MoET, the establishment
and development of their internal quality assurance systems and mechanisms
would depend largely on their existing organisational management style; their
deep-rooted values, beliefs, norms and culture; their available resources; and their
290
current quality status, including the above-mentioned quality improvement needs.
As such, the decision on which components of the internal quality assurance
mechanism to receive more priority and more investment than others, becomes
well-informed.
One of the possible implications of the findings is the understanding of the
conditions needed for the quality assurance initiative to be a successful
institutional change. The first condition is the ministerial provision of legal and
regulatory frameworks, in this case the APQN framework and Chiba principles.
The second condition is the establishment of the internal quality assurance system
and mechanism, comprising all five components of the quality assurance
framework.
As a common saying in organisational management goes, it is the people who
create and operate any system, so different people may operate the same system
differently. By implication, when any quality assurance framework or system is
adopted and implemented by people in an institution, fundamental changes can
only be embedded to good effect if the change is owned by the people. In other
words, the institutional change should start from changes in people’s awareness,
mind-set and attitude (House et al., 2004). To be framework-wise, a quality
culture should be a central element, interacting closely with the other human-
affecting elements of leadership, cooperation and collaboration.
Another implication that the study offers is the understanding of how constraining
factors emerged during the process of quality assurance implementation, and
(some) were resolved. For those constraints that are inevitable in any change
implementation process, such as conflicts and resistance, finding the appropriate
way to handle them is what counts. Possible conflicts and resistance could be pre-
empted by several measures. At the beginning of the change implementation
process, these measures may be communicating the shared vision, raising
awareness among all staff, forming task-force teams of capable and committed
people, and providing a supporting environment (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Graetz et
291
al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2009). During the process, such measures as producing
symbols of progress through ‘short-term wins’, (Kotter, 2002, p. 126) or
‘celebrating the future’ might ‘help people let go of old attachments and embrace
new ways of doing things’ (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 396).
When conflicts and resistance are identified, they should not be crushed or
removed; instead, the perspectives of the groups concerned should be understood.
From this reframed angle, strategies should be modified if needed, or internal
communication enhanced and supporting policies issued, thus creating an
enabling environment to which staff will willingly contribute. As advocated by
organisational change management theorists, conflicts and resistance to change
should be taken as challenges rather than hindrances (Graetz et al., 2011;
Anderson & Anderson, 2001; Palmer et al., 2009).
The findings of the study also offer one more implication regarding how to
sustain quality assurance initiatives. Among several measures to reinforce the
change and make it stick, the optimal solution seems to be maintaining a ‘tension-
filled poise’ (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 436) between accountability and
improvement or, as inspired by the Yin-Yang principle in life, keeping
accountability and improvement in an inter-complementary relationship. As such,
the preparation for accountability can be done amidst continuous improvement, or
the result of continuous improvement can be enhanced capacity for
accountability.
This maintained power tension could prevent the resources from being
manipulated for short-term external quality assurance missions, and stop the
sacrifice of real improvement needs for symbolic compliance. The application of
the Yin-Yang principle could fit nicely in this tension management process. As
discussed in Chapter 8, this principle allows for dynamism and flexibility in
fuelling quality assurance initiatives, while keeping the change initiators alert to
the co-existence of two parts of quality assurance - external and internal.
292
One related implication for public universities in developing contexts is that if the
university develops strategic plans and invests in capacity development projects,
its internal quality assurance can become normally required practice, and get
embedded into institutional life. Then there is chance for the change to stick.
The findings of the study also provide developmental implications for Vietnamese
higher education. At the national and ministerial levels, a more flexible
mechanism is needed for public universities to have financial autonomy. As
suggested by Professor Ngo Bao Chau in the educational forum on teacher
policies (CHEER, 2016), public universities should have their autonomy to decide
on the special income for teacher-researcher, from either the state allocated
budget, or the “out-of-state-budget” financial resource. In the future, public
universities should have a higher level of financial autonomy for investment in
other internal capacity building initiatives.
At the institutional level, the following implications are offered:
o Human resources are key to the sustainability of quality assurance
initiatives, therefore, attention should be paid to immersion training
(capacity building for the next staff generation). This could be done
through teaming up senior lecturers-researchers with junior staff, thus
resolving the problem of unbalanced teaching/researching loads, as well as
providing junior teachers with research opportunities to enhance their
capacity. Another issue is avoiding the in-breed employment (universities
employing their own fresh graduates).
o More investment is needed to enhance the quality of research and the
academic body, as these are seen as measures of educational quality, and
necessary for transformative education.
o Stakeholder engagement has been shown to be important and beneficial,
however, this is still overlooked or neglected by many universities.
Connecting with external stakeholders could facilitate the narrowing of
gaps between universities’ teaching and research, and the development
293
demands of society. The partnership of universities as knowledge creators,
and enterprises or industries could bring about benefits, primarily for
universities themselves. Such partnerships justify the existence of
universities, improve their prestige in society and give them an
irreplaceable position in a national innovative and creative mechanism.
o The role of the communist party should not be underestimated. The
findings of the study show that in the initial stage of quality assurance
implementation, this political power helped ‘overcome resistance’
(Pfeffer, 1992, p. 30). Later in the process, when people realised the
benefits of the change, they improved their awareness and moved from a
responsive to an active mode.
In short, the quality assurance initiative has become an inevitable change in
higher education globally, including in Vietnam and other developing countries,
helping to enhance capacity, competitiveness and status in an ever-demanding
world. However, it requires individual universities to self-analyse their existing
capacity and conditions, and opt for a viable quality assurance framework. The
recipe for success includes owning the change, managing the change, and
sustaining the change.
9.4 Limitations and recommendations for further studies
This study has investigated the current adoption of a common quality assurance
framework for Vietnamese higher education at a case study institution. Although
the researcher tried to be cautious, transparent and ethical in all aspects of the
investigation, there were still some unavoidable limitations to the study.
First, due to the proposed scope of research, the study did not involve key
stakeholders such as employers, staff, teachers and students. Although this study
is not an impact assessment, and it did not measure differences before and after
quality assurance initiatives were introduced and implemented, a comprehensive
picture of the quality assurance implementation at the case institution from a
294
diversity of perspectives could be more convincing. Future large-scale studies in
the field should therefore include the views from all stakeholders concerned.
Also, since no survey or interviews were conducted with participant groups of
staff, teachers and students - the people who are directly involved in the change
implementation - there was no available empirical data for this experience level.
This could be done in future studies, creating more comprehensive empirical data.
Second, due to the selection of case study as the research methodology, not all the
key findings of the study can be generalised as implications for other public
universities in Vietnam, or others in developing country contexts. Moreover, one
limitation of the qualitative data collection method is that the data reflects how
the participants perceive reality, resulting in discrepancies among different
participants and multiple realities. These limitations were indicated in Chapter 4
of this study. Future studies, therefore, should consider investigating different
scenarios of quality assurance implementation at different Vietnamese
universities or, even better, involve a transnational comparative analysis, in order
to draw more applicable conclusions for adopting, implementing and sustaining
quality assurance initiatives.
Another limitation is that although data interpretation was done with caution, the
researcher could not avoid the rare case when one or more participants had no
authority to reflect on the reality of enactment/experience, and seemingly
provided their perception of the espoused policy. Future studies require the
employment of other sources of data, such as a survey of teachers and students, or
interview with teachers, allowing for more effective triangulation.
Last but not least, due to the complexity of the multiple case approach and the
framework for investigation and analysis, the study could only provide findings
and implications on broad issues. There is still a need for an in-depth
understanding of some specific issues, such as: the power tension between the
administrative and academic functions; how the member universities have
ensured their inputs, process and outputs; or to what extent each member
295
university has ensured their educational quality in terms of transformative
education. All of these issues could be topics for future studies.
Concluding remarks
Quality assurance in higher education is a recent phenomenon in Vietnamese
public universities. The case institution in this study has been one of the pioneers
in taking this quality assurance initiative into their development agenda. As the
findings of the study revealed, all the six member universities have demonstrated
their commitment to, and investment in, efforts and resources to ensure the
implementation of this instrumental change. One of the most significant
achievements of the case universities is that they have gradually shifted from
external quality assurance compliance to internal quality improvement. In other
words, quality assurance in their case started as an externally-driven change and
became internally-driven.
The findings of the study confirm that quality assurance in higher education is
context bound. The socio-cultural, systemic and organisational contexts in which
Vietnamese public universities operate influence their adoption and
implementation of quality assurance initiatives. Likewise, different contextual
factors would affect the theoretical assumptions concerning effective quality
assurance practice in another university elsewhere. That is, the theoretical
assumptions are not universal across countries, and the assumptions working in
one context may not work equally in another. This suggests the importance of
understanding the context before universities opt for any quality assurance
framework.
296
REFERENCES
Adams, D., Acedo, C., & Popa, S. (2012a). Quality Education - Challenges and
Policy Choices. In C. Acedo, D. Adams & S. Popa (Eds.), Quality and
Qualities: Tensions in Education Reforms (pp. 197-208). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Adams, D., Acedo, C., & Popa, S. (2012b). In search of Quality Education. In C.
Acedo, D. Adams & S. Popa (Eds.), Quality and Qualities: Tensions in
Education Reforms (pp. 1-22). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Michelsen, G., Barth, M., Rieckmann, M., &
Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable
development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 8(4), 416-430.
Ahmad, H., Francis, A., & Zairi, M. (2007). Business process reengineering:
critical success factors in higher education. Business Process Management
Journal, 13(3), 451-469.
Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and
collaboration in higher education: A model. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2007(139), 5-14. doi: 10.1002/cc.288.
Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2001). Beyond Change Management. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Anderson, G. (2006). Assuring Quality/Resisting Quality Assurance: Academics’
responses to ‘quality’ in some Australian universities. Quality in Higher
Education, 12(2), 161-173. doi: 10.1080/13538320600916767.
APQN. (2008). Higher education quality assurance principles for the Asia-
Pacific region. Paper presented at the APQN Annual conference, Chiba,
Japan.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Assumption University. (2000). Quality Assurance theoretical framework.
Bangkok: AU
Barnett, R. (1992). Improving Higher Education: Total Quality Care.
Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Barrie, S. (2005). Rethinking generic graduate attributes. HERDSA News, 27(1),
3-6.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham-
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and
embedding graduate attributes: bringing together quality assurance and
action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher
Education Research & Development, 23(3), 313-328.
Bauer, M., & Franke-Wikerberg, S. (1993). Quality assurance in Swedish Higher
Education: shared responsibility. Paper presented at the General
Conference of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies
in Higher Education, Montreal, Canada.
297
Becket, N., & Brookes, M. (2008). Quality Management Practices in Higher
Education - What Quality Are We Actually Enhancing. Journal of
Hospitability, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 7(1), 40-54.
Bernhard, A. (2012). Quality Assurance in an International Higher Education
Area: A summary of a case-study approach and comparative analysis.
Tertiary Education and Management, 18(2), 153-169.
Berry, R. S. Y. (1999). Collecting data by in-depth interviewing. Paper presented
at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
University of Sussex at Brighton.
Billing, D. (2004). International comparisons and trends in external quality
assurance of HE: commonality or diversity. Higher Education, 47, 113-
137.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come
from, What they do, Why they fail. Chichester: John Wiley.
Birnbaum, R. (Ed.). (1988). How colleges work: the cybernetics of academic
organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blackmur, D. (2004). Issues in higher education quality assurance. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 63(2), 105-116.
Blackmur, D. (2007). The public regulation of Higher Education qualities:
Rationale, Processes and Outcomes. In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker
& M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in
Regulation, Translation and Transformation. (pp. 15-45). Springer.
Boaden, R. J., & Dale, B. G. (1992). Teamwork in services: quality circles by
another name? International Journal of Service Industry Management,
4(1), 5-24.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern Approaches to Understanding and
Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice,
and Leadership. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bouwen, R. (2001). Developing relational practices for knowledge intensive
organizational contexts. Career Development International, 6(7), 361-369.
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning: Beyond quality and
competence in university education. London: Kogan Page.
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (2003). The university of learning: beyond quality and
competence.New York: Routledge.
Boyle, P., & Bowden, J. A. (1997). Educational Quality Assurance in
Universities: an enhanced model. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 22(2), 111-121.
Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for Excellence. New York:
Wiley.
Brennan, J. (1995). Authority, Legitimacy and Change: The Rise of Quality
Assessment in Higher Education. OECD/CERI/IMHE Seminar on
Institutional Responses to Quality Assessment, Paris, December.
Brennan, J., Goedegebuure, L. C. J., Shah, T., Westerheijden, D. F., & Weusthof,
P. J. M. (1992). Towards a methodology for comparative quality
assessment in European higher education: A pilot study on economics in
298
Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
London/Enschede/Hannover: CNAA/CHEPS/HIS.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000a). Quality assessment and Institutional change:
Experiences from 14 countries. Higher Education, 40, 331-349.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000b). Managing Quality in Higher Education: An
international perspective on Institutional Assessment and Change.
Buckingham, UK: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organisations. London: Sage.
Buckle, B. (1998). Practical steps towards a Learning Organization: Applying
academic knowledge to Improvement and Innovation in business process.
The Learning Organization, 5(1), 15-23.
Busher, H., & James, N. (2007). Ethics of Research in Education. In A. R. J.
Briggs & M. Coleman (Eds.), Research Methods in Educational
Leadership and Management (pp. 106-122). Google E-book: SAGE.
Campbell, C., & Rozsnyai, C. (2002). Quality Assurance and the Development of
Course programs. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES: Papers on Higher
Education.
Campbell, D., Coldicott, T., & Kinsella, K. (1994). Systemic Work with
Organizations: A New Model for Managers and Change Agents. London:
H. Karnac (Books) Ltd.
Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems
and indicators of learning and teaching (Vol. 1.2). NSW, Australia:
Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Ltd.
CHEER. (2015). International Education Bulletin, 25.
CHEER. (2016). Tertiary Education Assessment and Research Bulletin, 6.
Cheng, Y. C. (2003). Quality assurance in education: internal, interface, and
future. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(4), 202-213.
Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22-31.
Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality
assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36. doi:
10.1080/13538320500074915.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (1994). Educational research
methodology. Athens: Metaixmio.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education.
(6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Colling, C., & Harvey, L. (1995). Quality control, assurance and assessment - the
link to continuous improvement. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(4),
30-34.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1991). Higher Education: quality and diversity in
the 1990s. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Conway, T., Mackay, S., & Yorke, D. (1994). Strategic planning in higher
education: Who are the customers. International journal of educational
Management, 8(6), 29-36.
Crehan, A. C. (2002). Professional Distance: Defining it, Maintaining it,
Managing it. Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.
299
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-
methods approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: choosing
among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Inc.
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free
Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Csizmadia, T. (2006). Quality Management in Hungarian Higher Education:
Organizational Responses to Governmental Policy. Enschede: CHEPS.
Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher
education: from monitoring to implementation. Quality Assurance in
Education, 11(1), 5-14.
Dang, T. K. A. (forthcoming, 2016). Understanding practices, informing policies:
Voices from an English language teacher education innovation in
Vietnam. In S. Bohlinger, T. K. A. Dang & M. Klatt (Eds.), Education
Policy: Mapping the Landscape and Scope. Frankfurt: Peter Lang
Publishers.
Dao, K. V. (2014). Key challenges in the reform of governance, quality
assurance, and finance in Vietnamese higher education - a case study.
Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842223, 1-16.
Dao, K. V., & Hayden, M. (2010). Reforming the governance of higher education
in Vietnam. In G. Harman, M. Hayden & P. T. Nghi (Eds.), Reforming
higher education Vietnam (pp. 129-142). London: Springer.
Davies, J., Hides, M. T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in higher education.
Total Quality Management, 12(7-8), 1025-1030.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Discipline and Practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Dill, D. D. (1995). Through Deming's eyes: a cross-national analysis of quality
assurance policies in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 1(2),
95-110.
Dill, D. D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher education
policy, 10(3-1), 167-185.
Dill, D. D. (1999). Academic accountability and university adaptation: The
architecture of an academic learning organisation. Higher Education, 38,
127-154.
Dill, D. D. (2007a). Will market competition assure academic quality? An
analysis of the UK and US experience. In D. F. Westerheijden, B.
Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education:
300
Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation. (pp. 47-72).
Springer.
Dill, D. D. (2007b). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Practices and Issues.
Retrieved from www.unc.edu/ppaq/docs/Encyclopedia_Final.pdf
Dill, D. D. (2010). We can't go home again: insights from a quarter century of
experiments in external academic quality assurance. Quality in Higher
Education, 16(2), 159-161.
Doan, D. H. (2005). Moral education or political education in the Vietnamese
educational system? Journal of Moral education, 34(4), 451-463.
Doan, L. K. (2015). A good mother is better than a good teacher. (2nd ed.).
Hanoi: Culture Publishing House.
Doherty, G. D. (1995). BS 5750 parts 1 and 2/ ISO 9000 (series); 1987 and
education - do they fit and is it worth it. Quality Assurance in Education,
3(3), 3-9.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organization. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
Dorfman, P. W., & House, R. J. (2004). Cultural Influences on Organizational
Leadership. Culture, Leadership and Organizations: the GLOBE study of
62 societies (pp. 51-73). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Douglas, M. (1982). Cultural bias. In M. Douglas (Ed.), In the active voice. (pp.
183-254) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Duke, C. (1992). The Learning University. Towards a New Paradigm? The
Cutting Edge Series: ERIC.
European University Association. (2006). Quality Culture in European
Universities: a bottom-up approach. Brussels: EUA.
Ewell, P. (2007). The "Quality game": External review and Institutional reaction
over three decades in the United States. In D. F. Westerheijden, B.
Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education:
Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation. (pp. 119-153).
Springer.
Ewell, P. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in Higher Education: What's
happened and What's different? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 173-
175.
Fang. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and
Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.
Fayol, H. ([1916] 2005). General Principles of Management. In J. M. Shafritz &
e. al. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory. (6th ed.). Belmont,
California: Thomson Wadsworth.
Ferguson, K. E. (1985). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia :
Temple University Press.
Frazer, M. (1992).Quality assurance in higher education. In A. Craft (Ed.),
Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Proceedings of an International
Conference (pp. 9-25). London: The Falmer Press.
Freire, A. D. (2011). WTO accession, socioeconomic transformation, and skills
development strategy in Vietnam. In J. D. London (Ed.), Education in
Vietnam (pp. 299-326). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
301
Garvin. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,
71(4), 78-84.
Genus, A. (1998). The Management of Change: Perspectives and Practice.
London: International Thomson Business Press.
George, E. S. (2011). Higher Education in Vietnam: Boundaries of Autonomy. In
J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp. 212-236). Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Gillham, B. (2010). Case study research methods. London: Continuum
International Publishing.
Goncalves, M. (2012). Learning organizations: turning knowledge into actions.
New York: Business Expert Press.
Gordon, G. (2002). The roles of Leadership and Ownership in Building an
Effective Quality Culture. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 97-106. doi:
10.1080/13538320220127498.
Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Smith, A., & Lawrence, A. (2011). Managing
Organisational Change- (3rd Australasian ed.). Milton Qld: John Wiley &
Sons Australia.
Green, D. (1993). Quality Assurance in Western Europe: Trends, Practices and
Issues. Quality Assurance in Education, 1(3), 4-14.
Grieves, J. (2010). Organizational Change: Themes and Issues. New York:
Oxford University Press.
GSO. (2011). National survey on population fluctuations and family planning.
Retrieved 23 August 2015 from
http://mic.gov.vn/daotaonghe/thongke/Trang/Cơcấudânsốvàlựclượnglaođộ
ngtạiViệtNam.aspx
GSO. (2012). Data results of the Vietnam household living standards survey
2012. Retrieved from
http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=483&idmid=4&ItemID=13
888
Hanh, T. N. (2001). Public talk: Embracing Anger. New York: Riverside Church.
Harvey, L. (1995). Beyond TQM. Quality in Higher Education, 1(2), 123-146.
Harvey, L. (1997). Quality is not free! Quality monitoring alone will not improve
quality. Tertiary Education and Management, 3(2), 133-143.
Harvey, L. (2002a). The end of quality? Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 5-22.
Harvey, L. (2002b). Evaluation for what? Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3),
245-263.
Harvey, L. (2009, March). A critical analysis of quality culture. In International
Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education
(INQAAHE) Conference, New Approaches to Quality Assurance in the
Changing World of Higher Education, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
(Vol. 30).
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining Quality. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education. London:
SRHE and Open University Press.
302
Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2004). Transforming quality evaluation. Quality in
Higher Education, 10(2), 149-165.
Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming Quality Evaluation: Moving on.
In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality
Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and
Transformation. (pp. 225-245). Springer.
Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: understandings, boundaries
and linkages. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 427-442.
Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of Quality in Higher Education.
Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3-36.
Haworth, J. G., & Conrad, C. F. (1997). Emblems of Quality in Higher Education.
Developing and Sustaining High-Quality Programs. ERIC.
Hayden, M. (2005). The legislative and regulatory environment of higher
education in Vietnam. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Hayden, M., & Lam., T. Q. (2007). Institutional autonomy for higher education in
Vietnam. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 73-85.
Heffron, F. (1989). Organization Theory and Public Organizations: The political
connection. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research:
Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12,
14-19.
Ho, V. K. N. (2011). Market-led globalisation and higher education: the case of
Da Nang university. In J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp.
259-276). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Hodson, P., & Thomas, H. (2003). Quality assurance in Higher Education: Fit for
the new millennium or simply year 2000 compliant? Higher Education,
45(3), 375-387.
Hoecht, A. (2006). Quality Assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust,
control, professional autonomy and accountability. Higher Education, 51,
541-563.
Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London:
Sage Publications.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman
(Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 140-161).
London: Sage.
Hood, C. (2000). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management:
Oxford University Press.
Horsburgh, M. (1999). Quality Monitoring in Higher Education: the impact on
student learning Quality in Higher Education, 5(1), 9-25.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Houston, D. (2007). TQM and Higher Education: A Critical Systems Perspective
on Fitness for Purpose. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 3-17.
Houston, D. (2008). Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 61-79.
303
Hsieh, H-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literature. Organization Science, 2, 88-115.
IIEP-UNESCO. (2011). External quality assurance: options for higher education
managers: Training modules. IIEP- UNESCO
Jing, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2014). A Yin-Yang Model of Organizational
Change: The Case of Chengdu Bus Group. Management and Organisation
Review, 10(1), 29-54.
Joshi, M., & Krag, S. S. (2010). Issues in Data Management. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 16(4), 743-748.
Kahsay, M. N. (2012). Quality and Quality Assurance in Ethiopian Higher
Education: critical issues and practical implications. PhD, University of
Twente, the Netherlands.
Kemenade, V. E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T. W. (2008). More value to defining
quality. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 175-185.
Kettunen, J. (2008). A conceptual framework to help evaluate the quality of
institutional performance. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(4), 322-
332.
Kezar, A. (2000). Understanding and facilitating change in higher education in
the 21st century. Washington DC: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A. (2001a). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the
21st century. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 147.
Kezar, A. (2001b). Understanding and Facilitating Change in Higher Education
in the 21st Century. ERIC Digest.
Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to, reorganizing for collaboration in higher
education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(6), 50-57.
Kezar, A. (2008). Examining Organizational Contextual Features that Affect
Implementation of Equity Initiatives. The Journal of Higher Education,
79(2), 125-159.
Kohoutek, J. (2009a). Setting the stage: Quality Assurance, Policy Change, and
Implementation. In J. Kohoutek (Ed.), Implementation of the Standards
and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Central
and East-European Countries - Agenda Ahead (pp. 11-19). Bucharest:
UNESCO-CEPES.
Kohoutek, J. (2009b). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A contentious. In
J. Kohoutek (Ed.), Implementation of the Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Central and East-European
Countries - Agenda Ahead (pp. 21-50). Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review (March-April), 59-67.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The Heart of Change: Real Life Stories of
How People Change Their Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
304
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties
in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-
assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-
1134.
Lagrosen, S., Seyyed‐Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the
dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in
Education, 12(2), 61-69. doi: doi:10.1108/09684880410536431.
Lam, T. Q., & Vu, P. A. T. (2012). The development of Higher Education, and its
Quality Assurance, in Vietnam. In D. Acedo, D. Adams & S. Popa (Eds.),
Quality and Qualities: Tensions in Education Reforms (pp. 125-142).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Langfeldt, L., Stensaker, B., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. F.
(2009). The role of peer review in Norwegian quality assurance: potential
consequences for excellence and diversity. Springer Science+Business
Media B. V., 391-405.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching
research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57. doi:
10.1080/09518390500450144.
Law, K. M. Y., & Kesti, M. (2014). Yin Yang and organisational performance:
five elements for improvement and success. Springer.
Lawler, E. E., & Worley, C. G. (2006). Built to change: How to achieve sustained
organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lemaitre, M. J. (2002). Quality as politics. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 29-
37.
Leppitt, N. (2006). Challenging the code of change: Part 1. Praxis does not make
perfect. Journal of Change Management, 6(2), 121-142.
Light, P. C. (2005). The four pillars of high performance: how robust
organizations achieve extraordinary results. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lim, D. (2001). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A study of developing
countries. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry
methodologies? In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to
evaluation in education (pp. 89-115). New York: Praeger.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 53-59.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research. (3rd ed.). (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Lomas, L. (2004). Embedding quality: the challenges for higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 157-165.
Lomas, L. (2007). Zen, motorcycle maintenance and quality in higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 15(4), 402-412.
305
London, J. D. (2010a). Governance and the governance of higher education in
Vietnam. In K. H. Mok (Ed.), The search for new governance of higher
education in Asia (pp. 193-214). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
London, J. D. (2010b). Globalisation and governance of education in Vietnam.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(4), 361-379.
London, J. D. (2011a). Contemporary Vietnam's education system: historical
roots, current trends. In J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp. 1-
56).Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
London, J. D. (2011b). Historical Welfare Regimes and Education in Vietnam. In
J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp. 57-103). Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
MacKenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemma: Paradigms, Methods and
Methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.
Mai, N. T., & Dang, X. T. (2012). University leadership for academic excellence:
East Asian university executive leaders’ responses to global challenges.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Mindset
Development in Leadership and Management, 21-22 September, 2012,
University of Riverside, Ontario, California, USA.
Manning, K. (2013). Organizational Theory in Higher Education. New York:
Routledge.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Maula, M. (2006). Organizations as learning systems: "Living composition" as an
enabling infrastructure. Boston: Elsevier.
McLennan, R. (1989). Managing Organizational Change. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.
Meade, P. H. (1997). Challenges facing universities: Quality leadership and the
management of change. Dunedin: University of Otago.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading academics. Buckingham: SRHE and Open
University Press.
Middlehurst, R. (1997). Reinventing Higher Education: the leadership challenge.
Quality in Higher Education, 3(2), 183-198.
Middlehurst, R., & Elton, L. (1992). Leadership and management in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 17(3), 251-264.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis:
A Methods Sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications Inc.
306
Mirvis, P. H. (1996). Historical foundations of organization learning. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 13-31.
Mitchel, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of
stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and
what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 853-866.
MoET. (2011). The Education Strategic Development Plan 2011-2020.
MoET. (2014). National report on "Education for all" Vietnam.
MoJ. (2011). Decision No. 47/2001/QD-TTg by the Prime Minister of the
Government: Approving the planning on the network of universities and
colleges in the 2001-2010 period.
MoJ. (2007). Decision No. 121/2007/QD-TTg by the Prime Minister of the
Government: Approving the planning on the university and college
network in the 2006-2020 period.
Mok, K. H. (2000). Impact of globalisation: A study of Quality Assurance
Systems of Higher Education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparative
Education Review, 44(2), 148-174.
Nadler, D. A. (1998). Champions of change: How CEOs and their companies are
mastering the skills of radical change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newton, J. (2000). Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality? Academics'
perceptions of quality assurance and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher
Education, 6(2), 153-163. doi: 10.1080/713692740.
Newton, J. (2002). Barriers to effective quality management and leadership: Case
study of two academic departments. Higher Education, 44, 185-212.
Newton, J. (2006). What is quality? Paper presented at the 1st European Forum
for Quality Assurance 24 November 2006, Munich.
Newton, J. (1999). Implementing quality assurance policy in a higher education
college: exploring the tension between the views of ‘managers’ and
‘managed’. In Fourie, M., Strydom, A. H. & Stetar, J. (Eds)
Reconsidering quality assurance: programme assessment and
accreditation (pp. 4-51). Bloemfontein: University of the Free State Press.
Nguyen, K. D., Oliver, D. E., & Priddy, L. E. (2009). Criteria for Accreditation in
Vietnam's Higher Education: Focus on Input or Outcome? Quality in
Higher Education, 15(2), 123-134.
Nguyen, K. T. (2015). The truth.
https://nhacsituankhanh.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/su-that/
Nguyen, L. C. (2011). Vietnamese Education under Feudalism and French
colonialism. Ho Chi Minh city: Vietnam National University Press.
Nguyen, M. H. (2011). Challenges to Higher Education reform: A university
management perspective. In J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam
(pp. 237-258). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Nilsson, K.-A., & Wahlén, S. (2000). Institutional Response to the Swedish
Model of Quality Assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 7-18. doi:
10.1080/13538320050001036
Nisbet, J., & Watt, J. (1984). Case study. In J. Bell, T. Bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey &
S. Goulding (Eds.), Conducting Small-Scale Investigations in Educational
Management (pp. 79-92). London: Harper & Row.
307
O'Mahony, K., & Garavan, T. N. (2012). Implementing a quality management
framework in a higher education organisation: A case study. Quality
Assurance in Education, 20(2), 184-200.
O'Neill, M. A., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance-performance analysis: a useful
tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1), 39-52.
Oliver, D. E. (2004). Higher education challenges in developing countries: The
case of Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research
and Practice, 5(2), 3-18.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in
mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook
of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 351-383).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Osseo-Asare, A. E., Longbottom, D., & Murphy, W. D. (2005). Leadership best
practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the
perspective of the EFQM Excellence Model. Quality Assurance in
Education, 13(2), 148-170.
Owlia, M. S. (1996). Quality in Higher Education - a survey. Total Quality
Management, 7(2), 161-172.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing Organizational Change: a
multiple perspective approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Papadimitrious, A. (2011). Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management in
Greek Higher Education. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4),
355-372.
Parker, M. (2000). Organizational culture and identity: Unity and division at
work. London: Sage Publications.
Penington, D. (1998). Managing quality in higher education institutions of the
21st century: a framework for the future. Australian Journal of Education,
42(3), 256-270.
Perellon, J. F. (2007). Analysing Quality Assurance in Higher Education:
proposals for a conceptual framework and methodological implications. In
D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance
in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and
Transformation. (pp. 155-178). Springer.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and Influence in Organizations.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Pham, T. X. (2012). Overview of quality assurance and quality accreditation of
education in Vietnam. Report to the National committee for
communication. Hanoi: General Department of Educational Testing and
Accreditation, Ministry of Education and Training.
Phan, L. (2013). The pressure of the entrance examination: why? Retrieved 25
August 2015, from http://www.nhandan.com.vn/giaoduc/dien-
dan/item/20299002-áp-lực-thi-đại-học-tại-sao-và-do-đâu.html.
Pieters, G. R., & Young, D. W. (2000). The Ever-Changing Organization:
Creating the Capacity for Continuous Change, Learning and
Improvement. New York: St. Lucie Press.
308
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as agents in the HRM‐performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource
Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.
Raddon, A. (2010). Early Stage Research Training: Epistemology & Ontology in
Social Science Research. Training module for postgraduate students. UK:
Leicester University
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education London: Routledge.
Rasori, T. M. (2012). Examining espoused and enacted theories about the
cultivation of teacher leaders: a case study of a university's education
department. Doctoral thesis. California: UC San Diego.
Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring
academic labor. Albany: State University of New York Press
Salleh, K., & Huang, C. C. (2011). Learning Organization, Knowledge
Management Process and Organizational Performance: Empirical
Evidence from a public university. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the International Conference on Intellectual capital, Knowledge
Management and Organizational learning.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Climate and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
SEAMEO. (2007). Vietnam higher education system. Retrieved 27 January 2010,
from http://www.rihed.seameo.org/index.php?option=com_con-
tent&task=view&id=32&Itemid=41
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for
researchers in education and the social sciences. (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The
dance of change. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B. J., Dutton, J., &
Kleiner, A. (2012). Schools that learn. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Shah, M., & Jarzabkowski, L. (2013). The Australian higher education quality
assurance framework. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher
Education, 17(3), 96-106.
Shah, M., Lewis, I., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). The renewal of quality assurance in
Australian higher education: the challenge of balancing academic rigour,
equity and quality outcomes. Quality in Higher Education, 17(3), 265-
278.
Shanahan, P., & Gerber, R. (2004). Quality in university student administration:
stakeholder conceptions. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 166-174.
doi:10.1108/09684880410561578.
Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
309
Sporn, B. (2007). Governance and Administration: Organizational and structural
trends. In J. F. F. James & G. A. Philip (Eds.), International Handbook of
Higher Education (pp. 141-157). Springer.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2002). Developing a Holistic Model for Quality
in Higher Education. Quality in Higher Education, 8(3), 215-224.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for
quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational
Management, 17(3), 126-136. doi: doi:10.1108/09513540310467804.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). A synthesis of a quality management
model for education in universities. International Journal of Educational
Management, 18(4), 266- 279.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2007). A conceptual overview of a holistic
model for quality in higher education. International Journal of
Educational Management, 21(3), 173-193.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). London: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2011). Qualitative Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning
stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of
Management, 12(s1), S3-S26.
Stella, A. (2008). Quality Assurance Arrangements in Higher Education in the
Broader Asia-Pacific Region. Melbourne, Australia: Asia-Pacific Quality
Network Inc.
Stensaker, B. (2003). Trance, transparency and transformation: The impact of
external quality monitoring on higher education. Quality in Higher
Education, 9(2), 151-159.
Stensaker, B., Langfeldt, L., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D.
(2010). An in‐depth study on the impact of external quality assurance.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 465-478.
Stensaker, B., Rosa, M. J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2007). Conclusions and
further challenges. In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. J. Rosa
(Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation,
Translation and Transformation (pp. 247-262). Springer.
Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality and performance in Higher Education.
Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 47-54.
Taylor, J. (2010). The Response of Governments and Universities to
Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education. In F. Maringe
& N. Foskett (Eds.), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher
Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives (pp. 83-
96). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative
evaluation data. The American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
310
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating high
performance colleges and universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1998). The Responsive University: Restructuring for High
performance. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Toma, J. D. (2010). Building organizational capacity: Strategic management in
higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Torbert, W. R. (1991). The Power of Balance: Transforming self, society and
scientific inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tran, L., & Marginson, S. (2014). Education for Flexibility, Practicality and
Mobility. In R. King, J. Lee, S. Marginson & R. Naldoo (Eds.), Higher
Education in Vietnam: Flexibility, Mobility and Practicality in the Global
Knowledge Economy (pp. 3-25). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tran, N. D., & Nguyen., T. T. (2015). Shifting the Focus to Student Learning in
Teaching Evaluation: A New Direction for Vietnamese Higher Education
Institutions? Interchange 46(2), 113-119.
Tran, T. T. (2014). Governance in higher education in Vietnam – a move towards
decentralization and its practical problems. Journal of Asian Public
Policy, 7(1), 71-82. doi: 10.1080/17516234.2013.873341.
Truss, C. (2001). Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with
organizational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1121-
1149.
Turner, D. A. (2011). Performance indicators and benchmarking. In D. A. Turner
(Ed.), Quality in Higher Education- Comparative and International
Education: A diversity of Voices (Vol. 10, pp. 29-39). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
ULIS. (1990). Curriculum of the Bachelor program "Teaching English as a
Foreign Language". Internal document. Hanoi: Vietnam National
University.
Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organisations. The Academy of Management review, 20(3), 510-540.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational change. Organization studies, 26(9), 1377-1404.
Van Kemenade, E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T. W. (2008). More Value to
Defining Quality. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 175-185. doi:
10.1080/13538320802278461.
Van Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (1994). Towards a general model of
quality assessment in Higher Education. Higher Education, 28(3), 355-
371.
Vidovich, L. (2002). Quality assurance in Australian higher education:
Globalisation and "steering at a distance". Higher Education, 43, 391-408.
VNA. (2005). Education Law (No. 38/2005/QH11 of June 14, 2005).
VNA. (2009). Law: Amending and Supplementing a number of Articles of the
Education Law (No. 44/2009/QH12 of November 25, 2009).
VNA. (2012). Law on Higher Education (No. 08/2012/QH13).
311
VNGO. (2005). Higher Education Reform Agenda: Vietnamese Government
Resolution on substantial and comprehensive renewal of Vietnam’s
Tertiary Education in the 2006–2020 period. No 14/2005/NQ-CP.
VNGO. (2006). Decree No. 75/2006/ND-CP: Detailing and guiding the
implementation of a number of articles of the Education Law.
VNGO. (2011). Decree No. 31/2011/ND-CP: Amending and supplementing a
number of articles of the Government's decree No. 75/2006/ND-CP.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random
House.
Welch, A. R. (2010). Internationalisation of Vietnamese Higher Education:
Retrospect and Prospect Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam:
Challenges and priorities (pp. 197-213). Netherlands: Springer.
Westerheijden, D. F. (1999). What are the quantum jumps in quality assurance?
Developments of a decade of research on a heavy particle. Higher
Education, 38(2), 233-254.
Westerheijden, D. F. (2007). States and Europe and Quality of Higher Education.
In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality
Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and
Transformation. (Vol. 20, pp. 73-95). Springer.
Westerheijden, D. F., Cremonini, L., & Van Empel, R. (2010). Accreditation in
Vietnam's Higher Education System. In G. Harman (Ed.), Reforming
Higher Education in Vietnam (pp. 183-195). Springer Science + Business
Media B. V.
Westerheijden, D. F., Epping, E., Faber, M., Leisyte, L., & De Weert, E. (2013).
Stakeholders and Quality Assurance. Journal of the European Higher
Education Area, 4, 71-85.
Westerheijden, D. F., Hulpiau, V., & Waeytens, K. (2007). From Design and
Implementation to Impact of Quality Assurance: An Overview of Some
Studies into what Impacts Improvement. Tertiary Education and
Management, 13(4), 295-312. doi: 10.1080/13583880701535430.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Quality assurance in
higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation
(Vol. 20). Springer Science & Business Media.
Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning: Recognizing it when we see it.
AAHE bulletin, 4, 6.
Wick, C. W., & Leon, L. S. (1995). From Ideas to Action: Creating a Learning
Organization. Human Resource Management, 34(2), 299-311.
Woodhouse, D. (2006). Quality = Fitness for Purpose (FFP): Definitions for all
seasons. Paper presented at the APQN Conference on Cooperation in
Quality Assurance, Shanghai.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research - Design and Methods. (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York -
London: The Guilford Press.
312
Yorke, M. (2000). Developing a quality culture in higher education. Tertiary
Education and Management, 6(1), 19-36.
313
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: ETHICS APPROVAL
Type Human Ethics
Application ID HRE13-172
Application title Quality assurance in higher education in Vietnam: A
case-study
Status Finalised - Approved
Primary investigator ASPR Shelley Gillis
Process Stage Review completion: Application approved
Template name v.12-10 Human Research Ethics Application
Date created 24/6/2013
314
APPENDIX 2. INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
2.1 Interview with national policy-makers from the MoET
Date:
Place:
Interviewer: Hang Nguyen, PhD student, College of Education, Victoria
University, Australia
Interviewee:
Questions:
1. Can you, first of all, say a little about your involvement in the
development and implementation of the national quality assurance policy
and procedures?
2. What is the rationale for the national quality assurance policy? What
type(s) of quality assurance has(have) been implemented at the national
level? Are legal frameworks and regulations available for quality
assurance implementation in higher education? Can you elaborate on this?
3. What are the factors that facilitate the implementation of quality assurance
as a national policy?
4. How are these factors facilitating the implementation of the national
quality assurance policy?
5. What are the factors that hinder the implementation of quality assurance
as a national policy?
6. Are these factors permanent or temporary (can be removed or improved)?
Can you elaborate on this?
7. What is the feedback from universities regarding the implementation of
quality assurance as a national policy? How has this feedback been taken
into consideration?
8. What are the essential conditions for universities to sustain the quality
assurance initiative?
315
9. Do national policy-makers pay attention to internal quality assurance
within the institutions? Or just on accountability to make sure that they
meet national standards?
10. There has not been an independent quality assurance agency to conduct
external reviews for accreditation, as the national QA agency - the General
Department for Educational Testing and Accreditation (GDETA) - is not
an independent body but is still under the direct supervision and
governance of the Ministry of Education and Training. What are the pros
and cons of this status quo?
Final notes:
Who should I visit with to help my research?
Thank you very much for your time and expertise.
316
2.2 Interview with institutional policy-makers from VNUH
Date:
Place:
Interviewer: Hang Nguyen, PhD student, College of Education, Victoria
University, Australia
Interviewee:
Questions:
1. Can you, first of all, say a little about your involvement in the
development and implementation of the quality assurance practices at
your university/faculty?
2. What is the underpinning philosophy of the quality assurance mechanism
that is being implemented at your university? Did your university adopt or
develop your quality assurance framework? Can you elaborate on this?
3. What are the key components of the quality assurance mechanism that is
being implemented at your university? How is each component operating
and relating to quality assurance practices?
- Elements to consider: leadership and management, cooperation and
collaboration, stakeholder engagement, internal processes, quality
culture
4. How is your university responding to system level quality assurance? Do
you focus on accountability (satisfying stakeholders and meeting national
standards) or improvement (sustaining and continuously improving the
capacity and competitiveness of the university)?
- Do quality assurance practices in your university address
administrative functions or academic functions?
5. How do such organisational factors as organisational size, culture,
management and internal quality assurance mechanisms foster or impede
your university’s responsiveness to system level quality assurance?
6. How do you balance between compliance (addressing external quality
assurance) and improvement (addressing internal quality assurance)?
317
- Factors to consider: innovative teaching, professional development,
transformation of student learning
7. Is there a culture of continuous improvement at your university? If so,
how is this culture nurtured?
8. What are the current internal processes that facilitate internal quality
assurance or continuous improvement?
- To what extent are academic staff and students engaged in these
processes? How about administrators?
9. How is the collaboration and coordination among units of your university
created and maintained?
- Is collaborative research/learning promoted in your university? Can
you elaborate on this?
10. What do you think are the possible factors that facilitate the
implementation of quality assurance in your university?
11. What do you think are the possible factors that hinder the implementation
of quality assurance in your university?
12. What do you think are the essential conditions for fostering and sustaining
the quality assurance initiative in your university in particular, and in
Vietnamese higher education in general?
Final notes:
Who should I visit with to help my research?
Thank you very much for your time and expertise.
318
APPENDIX 3. LIST OF PILOT INTERVIEWS
1. First interview conducted on 20 April 2013, in Melbourne, with a former
Dean from University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam
National University, Hanoi.
2. Second interview conducted 25 April 2013, via skype, with a Dean from
University of Engineering and Technology, Vietnam National University,
Hanoi.
319
APPENDIX 4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
No. Document
Source
1 Statistics on accreditation of the National
Institution up to the end of 2014
INFEQA archive
2 The old version of the accreditation
criteria and standards
INFEQA archive
3 The new version of the accreditation
criteria and standards
INFEQA archive
4 Number of students attending full-time
programs
The Academic Affairs
department of the
National Institution
5 Number of tenured staff (as of 25
November 2015)
The Personnel department
of the National Institution
6 Decision No. 47/2001/QD-TTg by the
Prime Minister of the Government:
Approving the planning on the network of
universities and colleges in the 2001-2010
period.
MoET archive
7 Decision No. 121/2007/QD-TTg by the
Prime Minister of the Government:
Approving the planning on the university
and college network in the 2006-2020
period
MoET archive
8 Chiba principles MoET archive
9 Regulations on the autonomy of the
member universities
The Personnel department
of the National Institution
10 List of the full-time education programs The Academic Affairs
department of the
National Institution
11 List of scientific research projects
conducted by the member universities
The Science and
Technology department
of the National Institution
12 List of faculty members with titles The Personnel department
of the National Institution
320
APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW CODING
No. Interviewee
University Coding
1 Rector U1 05 PM1 (policy maker)
2 Dean U1 08 PM2
3 School head 1 U1 12 PI1 (policy
implementer)
4 School head 2 U1 11 PI2
5 Director of QA center U2 07 PM1
6 Dean U2 17 PM2
7 School head 1 U2 20 PI1
8 School head 2 U2 22 PI2
9 Rector U3 06 PM1
10 Vice-Dean U3 27 PM2
11 School head 1 U3 01 PI1
12 School head 2 U3 03 PI2
13 Director of QA center U4 24 PM1
14 Dean U4 21 PM2
15 School head 1 U4 26 PI1
16 School head 2 U4 23 PI2
17 Rector U5 15 PM1
18 Dean U5 18 PM2
19 School head 1 U5 19 PI1
20 School head 2 U5 25 PI2
21 Rector U6 04 PM1
22 Dean U6 10 PM2
23 School head 1 U6 14 PI1
24 School head 2 U6 13 PI2
25 Deputy Director MoET 16 M1 (Ministerial level)
26 Deputy Director INFEQA 09 M2
Note: The interview coded 02 was not used for the analysis, and was therefore not
included in this table.
